Jump to a Subcommittee
- Usability, Accessibility and User Experience
- Specific Application Areas
- Interaction Beyond the Individual
- Interaction using Specific Capabilities or Modalities
- Understanding People: Theory, Concepts, Methods
- Interaction Techniques and Devices
- Expanding Interaction through Technology, Systems and Tools
Selecting a Subcommittee
CHI 2011 anticipates submission of over 1,400 Papers and Notes. The review process needs to handle this load while also providing high-quality reviews. The organization of the CHI program committee into topical subcommittees helps achieve this by having you, the author, select the best subcommittee to review your submission.
The subcommittee structure empowers you to choose the appropriate community of researchers to review your research. An important thing to consider in selecting a subcommittee is that you are not describing your paper, you are instead providing information about your most important contribution and therefore the type of researcher who you feel is most qualified to review your paper.
Note: CHI will employ the subcommittee organization for review purposes only. Paper sessions at the conference will not be tracked or grouped based on the subcommittees.
Guidance for selecting the subcommittee for your submission
The author decides which subcommittee reviews his or her submission. When you submit a paper or note, you will designate which subcommittee you want to handle your submission. You will see a list of subcommittees and descriptions of the topics they are covering, the name of each Subcommittee Chair, and the names of some of the Associate Chairs serving on each subcommittee. Using all of this information, it is your responsibility to select the subcommittee that best matches the expertise needed to assess your research, and that you believe will most fully appreciate your contribution to the field of HCI.
CHI has traditionally supported diverse and interdisciplinary work and continues to expand into new topics not previously explored. We recognize that as a result, you may find several different subcommittees which are plausible matches for aspects of your work. Hence it may be difficult to choose between subcommittees. However, for a number of reasons it will be necessary for you to select one target subcommittee, and you should strive to find the best match based on what you think is the main contribution of your submission (examples of papers that are considered good matches are linked below for each subcommitee). You can also email the Subcommittee Chairs for guidance if you are unsure.
Note that the scope of each subcommittee is not rigidly defined. Each has a broad mandate and most subcommittees cover a collection of different topics. Further, Subcommittee Chairs are all seasoned researchers, experienced with program committee review work, and each is committed to a process which seeks to assign each paper reviewers who are true experts in whatever the subject matter of the paper is. Subcommittee Chairs recognize that many papers, or perhaps even most papers, will not perfectly fit the definition of their subcommittee's scope. Consequently, papers will not be penalized or downgraded because they do not align perfectly with a particular subcommittee. Interdisciplinary, multi-topic, and cross-topic papers are encouraged, and will be carefully and professionally judged by all subcommittees.
In making a subcommittee choice you should make careful consideration of what the most central and salient contribution of your work is, even if there are several different contributions. As an example, let's say you are writing a paper about Ergonomic Business Practices for the Elderly using Novel Input Devices. Perhaps this is a very new topic. It covers a lot of ground. It's not an exact fit for any of the subcommittees, but several choices are plausible. To choose between them, you need to make a reasoned decision about the core contributions of your work. Should it be evaluated in terms of the usage context for the target user community? The novel methodology developed for your study? The system and interaction techniques you have developed? Each of these evaluation criteria may partially apply, but try to consider which is most central and which you most want to highlight for your readers. Also look at the subcommittees, the people who will serve on them, and the kind of work they have been associated with in the past. Even if there are several subcommittees that could offer fair and expert assessments of this work, go with the one that really fits the most important and novel contributions of your paper. That committee will be in the best position to offer constructive and expert review feedback on the contributions of your research.
Each subcommittee description also links one or two recent CHI papers that the subcommittee chairs feel are good examples of papers that fit the intent and aim of that subcommittee. Please look at these examples as a way to decide on the best subcommittee for your paper - but remember that these are just a few examples, and do not specify the full range of topics that would fit with any subcommittee. (Note: the example papers will be linked as they are selected by the chairs).
List of the subcommittees
Subcommittees are listed and described below. Each has a title, short description, and an indication of who will Chair and serve on the subcommittee. Subcommittees have been constructed with an eye to maintaining logically coherent clusters of topics ó these are largely as set up for CHI 2010 with some changes, in part as a result of the need to balance the expected number of papers for each subcommittee and in part based on experiences in 2010.
Usability, Accessibility and User Experience
This subcommittee is suitable for papers that contribute by extending the knowledge, approaches, practices, methods, components and tools that can make technology more usable, invigorating and/or accessible by people. Successful papers will typically present practical approaches, tools, technologies and research methods that demonstrably advance our understanding and design capabilities for user experience, usability and/or accessibility. Contributions will be judged substantially on the basis of their demonstrable potential for effective reuse and applicability across a range of application domains and/or design, research, or user communities. The focus of this subcommittee is on broad innovative research and evaluation methods, and on their use in professional practice.
Gilbert Cockton (Northumbria University)
David Gilmore (Logitech)
Andrew Sears (UMBC)
Alistair Edwards (University of York)
Daniela Busse (SAP Labs)
Jofish Kaye (Nokia)
Manfred Tscheligi (University of Salzburg)
Sian Lindley (Microsoft Research)
John Thomas (IBM)
Jettie Hoonhout (Philips Research)
Marc Hassenzahl (Folkwang University, Essen )
Jaime Teevan (Microsoft Research)
Shari Trewin (IBM)
Melanie Fitzgerald (Google)
Regina Bernhaupt (IRIT-ICS, Toulouse)
Sandra Kogan (IBM)
Example papers and notes:
[Note] Measuring the user experience on a large scale: user-centered metrics for web applications.
[Paper] Average task times in usability tests: what to report?
[Paper] Undo and erase events as indicators of usability problems.
Specific Application Areas
This subcommittee will focus on papers which make a contribution by extending the design and understanding of applications for specific user communities or domains of interest to the HCI community. Examples of user communities include but are not limited to: older adults, children, families, disabled users, the underserved in developing countries. Examples of application areas include but are not limited to: education, home, entertainment, office, ecommerce, health, sustainability, and creativity. These contributions will be judged in part on their impact on the specific application area and/or community they address.
Allison Druin (University of Maryland)
Ben Bederson (University of Maryland)
Dan Morris (Microsoft Research)
Alan Borning (University of Washington)
Amy Bruckman (Georgia Tech)
Karrie Karahalios (University of Illinois)
Julie Kientz (University of Washington)
Wanda Pratt (Univ. of Washington)
Mike Eisenberg (University of Colorado)
Juan Pablo Hourcade (University of Iowa)
Hilary Hutchinson (Google Research)
Matt Jones (Swansea University)
Glenda Revelle (Sesame Workshp)
Gavin Doherty (Trinity College)
Matthew Kam (Carnegie Mellon University)
Bill Thies (Microsoft Research)
Steve Benford (University of Nottingham)
Frank Vetere (University of Melbourne)
Jeff Bigham (University of Rochester)
Andrew Ko (University of Washington)
Joanna McGrenere (University of British Columbia)
Carman Neustaedter (Simon Fraser University)
Heather Richter Lipford (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)
Gillian Hayes (UC Irvine)
Sheelagh Carpendale (University of Calgary)
Michael Terry (University of Waterloo)
Jennifer Mankoff (Carnegie Mellon University)
Leah Findlater (University of Washington)
Andruid Kerne (Texas A&M University)
PointAssist for Older Adults: Analyzing Sub-Movement Characteristics to Aid in Pointing Task
Mobile-izing health workers in rural India
Family story play: reading with young children (and elmo) over a distance
Interaction Beyond the Individual
We focus on papers and notes which consider how two or more people interact with one another through technology, in groups of two people to two million. Submissions will be judged in part by their contribution of data and interpretation; description and analysis of systems to support relationships and interactions; and/or theories and well-structured arguments regarding human communication, collaboration, conflict, play, and other activities supported or mediated by technologies.
Michael Muller (IBM)
Meredith Ringel Morris (Microsoft)
Gloria Mark (UC Irvine)
(University of Siegen)
Ed Chi (PARC)
Eytan Adar (University of Michigan)
Stacey Scott (University of Waterloo)
Laura Dabbish (Carnegie Mellon)
Sharoda Paul (PARC)
Niki Kittur (Carnegie Mellon)
Chen Zhao (Microsoft Research Asia)
Volkmar Pipek (Internationalen Institut für Sozio-Informatik)
Vova Soroka (IBM)
Hilda Tellioglu (Technische Universität Wien)
Marina Jirotka (Oxford University)
Lada Adamic (University of Michigan)
Kori Inkpen (Microsoft Research)
Jeff Heer (Stanford)
David McDonald (University of Washington)
Dan Russell (Google)
Bjoern Hartmann (U.C. Berkeley)
Mor Naaman (Rutgers University)
Susan Wyche (Virginia Tech)
Enhancing Directed Content Sharing on the Web.
Social Network Activity and Social Well-Being.
Using information scent to model the dynamic foraging behavior of programmers in maintenance tasks.
Think different: Increasing online community participation using uniqueness and group dissimilarity
This subcommittee will focus on papers that make a contribution to the design of interactive products, services, or systems; or that advance knowledge of the human activity of design as it relates to HCI. It will cover a broad range of design approaches: participatory, user-centered, experience, and service. It will also cover a range of design practices: interaction, industrial, experience, information, architecture, visual communication, and sensorial. Finally, it will focus on design research issues such as aesthetics, values, effects (such as emotion), methods, practices, critique, and theory.
Steve Harrison (Virginia Tech)
Ron Wakkary (Simon Fraser University)
Bill Gaver (Goldsmiths University of London)
Erik Stolterman (Indiana University)
Kristina Hook (Stockholm University)
Liz Gerber (Northwestern University)
Phoebe Sengers (Cornell University)
Rogerio De Paula (Intel)
Lucia Terrenghi (Vodafone)
Elizabeth Churchill (Yahoo! Research)
Caroline Hummels (Technische Universiteit Eindhoven)
Peter Wright (Newcastle University)
John Zimmerman (Carnegie Mellon University)
Steven Dow (Stanford)
Shaowen Bardzell (Indiana University)
Interactivity attributes: a new way of thinking and describing interactivity.
Empathy and experience in HCI.
G-nome surfer: a tabletop interface for collaborative exploration of genomic data.
Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design.
Interaction Using Specific Capabilities or Modalities
This subcommittee will focus on advances in interaction which are enabled by technologies, modalities, or capabilities which have not been fully exploited in traditional approaches to interaction. These contributions will be judged in part by their novelty and their ability to extend user capabilities in powerful new ways, or to new contexts. Example areas include, but are not limited to: visualization, multimedia UIs, tangible UIs, perception and vision-based systems, speech I/O, auditory I/O, augmented reality, and animation.
Stephen Brewster (University of Glasgow)
Andy Cockburn (University of Canterbury)
Anthony Hornof (University of Oregon)
Karon Maclean (University of British Colombia)
Robert Jacob (Tufts University)
Maribeth Gandy (Georgia Tech)
Jennifer Lai (IBM Watson)
Giulio Jacucci (Helsinki Institute for Information Technology)
Regan Mandryk (Unviersity of Saskatchewan)
Jean-Daniel Fekete (INRIA)
Stephen Fairclough (Liverpool John Moores University)
Bruce Thomas (University of South Australia)
Emmanuel Pietriga (INRIA)
Pourang Irani (University of Manitoba)
Keith Cheverst (Lancaster University)
A role for haptics in mobile interaction: initial design using a handheld tactile display prototype.
Sizing the horizon: the effects of chart size and layering on the graphical perception of time series visualizations.
Musink: composing music through augmented drawing.
Skinput: appropriating the body as an input surface.
Understanding People: Theory, Concepts, Methods
This subcommittee will focus on papers whose primary contribution is improved understanding of people and/or interactional contexts, as applied to address HCI problems. This understanding can be derived from qualitative or quantitative research, and can be study-based or more conceptual in nature. The core contribution is likely to take the form of evolved theories, concepts or methods. These contributions will be judged in part by their extension of our basic understanding of human behavior and/or their context of activity and the practical impact this may have on HCI practice and research.
Susan Fussell (Cornell University)
Dave Randall (Manchester Metropolitan University)
Shumin Zhai (IBM)
Paul Aoki (Intel)
Sara Kiesler (Carnegie Mellon University)
Judy Olson (University of California, Irvine)
Jeremy Birnholtz (Cornell University)
Sunny Consolvo (Intel Labs Seattle)
Mark Rouncefield (Lancaster University)
Richard Harper (Microsoft Research)
Cliff Lampe (Michigan State)
Jacki O'Neill (Xerox Research Center Europe)
Peter Tolmie (University of Nottingham)
Gary Hsieh (Michigan State)
Dario Salvucci (Drexel University)
Kasper Hornbćk (University of Copenhagen)
Paul Luff (Kings College London)
Wayne Lutters (University of Maryland, Baltimore County)
Antti Oulasvirta (Helsinki Institute for Information Technology)
Deborah Tatar (Virginia Tech)
Caroline Appert (Université Paris-Sud)
Gene Golovchinksy (FXPAL)
Dan Cosley (Cornell University)
Jennifer Thom-Santelli (IBM Research)
Alonso Vera (NASA)
Bonnie John (CMU)
Mary Czerwinski (Microsoft Research)
Cliff Nass (Stanford University)
Diane Kelly (University of North Carolina)
Ed Cutrell (Microsoft Research India)
Huahai Yang (IBM Almaden Research Center)
John Karat (IBM T. J Watson Research Center)
Ken Hinckley (Microsoft Research)
Ravin Blakrishnan (University of Toronto)
Renaud Blanch (Université Grenoble I)
Blogging in a region of conflict: supporting transition to recovery.
The effects of diversity on group productivity and member withdrawal in online volunteer groups.
The Case of the Disappearing Ox: Seeing Through Digital Images to an Analysis of Ancient Texts.
Why it's quick to be square: modelling new and existing hierarchical menu designs.
How does search behavior change as search becomes more difficult?
Interaction Techniques and Devices
This subcommittee will focus on contributions in the form of new input or interaction techniques, or devices. These contributions will be judged in part based on their novelty or on a demonstrated improvement in an existing interaction type of interest to the HCI community. Example areas include but are not limited to: pen-based tactile and haptic UIs, 3-D interaction, touch and multi-touch, tabletop and large display interaction.
Patrick Baudisch (Hasso-Plattner Institute)
Andy Wilson (Microsoft)
Steve Feiner (Columbia University)
Kelly Booth (University of British Columbia)
Chris Schmandt (MIT Media Lab)
Michael Rohs (Telekom Labs, Berlin)
Tomer Moscovich (Lab126)
Anne Roudaut (Hasso Plattner Institute)
Tovi Grossman (Autodesk Research)
Lars Erik Holmquist (Swedish Institute of Computer Science)
Daniel Wigdor (Microsoft Research)
Jacob Wobbrock (University of Washington)
Xiang Cao (MSR Cambridge)
Krzysztof Gajos (Harvard)
Joe Paradiso (MIT Media Lab)
Chris Harrison (CMU)
George Fitzmaurice (Autodesk Research)
Expanding Interaction through Technology, Systems and Tools
This subcommittee will focus on contributions to how interactive systems are built. This will include new tools and techniques for more effective construction of interactive systems. This includes both software and hardware technologies or systems that move interaction into new contexts or support mobile/ubiquitous human-computer interaction. These contributions will be judged in part by their technical innovation and/or ability to connect, simplify or enrich interactions across many modalities of use.
Dan Olsen (Brigham Young University)
Anind Dey (Carnegie Mellon University)
Tanzeem Choudhury (Dartmouth University)
Beverly Harrison (Intel Labs Seattle)
Albrecht Schmidt (University of Duisberg-Essen)
Khai Truong (University of Toronto)
Jeffrey Nichols (IBM Research)
Scott Hudson (CMU)
Rob Miller (MIT)
Roel Vertegaal (Queens University)
Mira Dontcheva (Adobe)
Shahram Izadi (MSR Cambridge)
Prefab: implementing advanced behaviors using pixel-based reverse engineering of interface structure
The Design and Evaluation of an End-User-Deployable, Whole House, Contactless Power Consumption Sensor