Welcome to CHI 2010! CHI is the leading international conference in
Human Computer Interaction and it is the archival material – especially
the papers and notes – that establishes its academic credentials.
We believe the paper and notes published here represent some of the
best current work in the field.
The HCI field is continuing to grow from strength to strength and continuing
to expand and diversify. While this is very positive growth, it also
places huge demands on the reviewing processes. To deal with this challenge,
CHI2009 introduced wide ranging and innovative changes to help make
it more manageable, while also ensuring that authors/papers are given
the most expert attention, and to raise awareness of the diverse types
of good CHI papers and the standards expected of them.
It will take several years before the full impact of these changes
are known and for this reason it was important to continue with this
new model for CHI2010, with some minor changes of course to reflect
‘lessons learned’. We split the program committee into eight
topical subcommittees, combining two of the CHI2009 subcommittees, and
updated the names and descriptions of some of them. Each subcommittee
comprised sub-committee chairs and various associate chairs (ACs) knowledgeable
on the topic. Authors selected the subcommittee that they felt could
best handle their submission. We believe this has worked well to improve
the match of a submission to AC and ultimately to reviewers, to have
more focused and relevant discussions in the program committee meeting,
and to minimize the load on individual volunteers. We continued with
combining papers and notes to ensure a consistent decision standard
across both submission types, while also being clear about the different
requirements for a 10 versus 4 page submission. And we continued the
use of contribution types with the aim of communicating to authors and
reviewers that there are many different and equally valid ways that
a CHI submission can contribute to the field.
This year, there were 1346 submissions, comprising 878 full papers
and 468 notes. In line with the growth of the field, this is the highest
number of submissions ever to CHI. Of these, we accepted 22%. The papers/notes
committee involved 139 volunteers from across the world: 2 co-chairs,
17 sub-committee chairs, and 120 associate chairs (ACs). Each AC managed
10-14 submissions, and personally recruited at least three – sometimes
more – referees knowledgeable in the paper’s topic. Refereeing
was through blind review. Each referee returned a recommendation along
with a detailed review. Authors had opportunity to rebut these reviews,
allowing them to address matters of fact, which were then taken into
account for the final decision. Additional reviews were sometimes solicited
and the majority of papers were read by a second AC as well. Overall
6223 individual reviews were produced in this process. Committee members
then attended a two-day meeting in Atlanta in December. The committees
were extremely careful in making decisions, with many submissions receiving
multiple discussions before and during the program committee meetings.
While no review process can execute perfectly in every case, everyone
involved worked very hard to ensure a fair process and to encourage
the consistency and quality of CHI reviews and the resulting decisions
across committees.
The amount of time and effort entailed in this review process, especially
for such a huge number of papers, cannot be underestimated nor undervalued.
We praise the commitment of the sub-committee chairs, associate chairs,
and referees for their amazing hard work and their service ethic. All
gave up considerable time to this process. The various chairs also paid
for this privilege, traveling from all around the world to the CHI PC
meeting at their own expense. All chairs have our gratitude and deserve
the sincere appreciation of the entire HCI community.
Finally, the various committees nominated 5% of the submissions for
Honorable Mention, with the top 2% of these papers nominated as Best
Papers. A separate committee then deliberated over the Best Paper nominations,
to select the 1% of papers and notes to receive a best paper award.
In total, as you will see in the program, 14 submissions were honored
as best papers, while 53 were designated as honorable mentions. Congratulations
to all authors who achieved this significant status!
We hope you enjoy the diverse and dynamic program created for you by your community peers (authors, chairs and reviewers) and that you are challenged and inspired to move the field forward even more.
Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Vienna University of Technology
Scott Hudson, Carnegie Mellon University
CHI 2010 Papers & Notes Co-Chairs
