SV T-Shirt Design Competition

Hello everyone,
It’s t-shirt design time! Every year, we call on students to design the wonderful t-shirt that our SVs wear! If your design is selected, you guarantee yourself an SV spot! This year, the deadline is Sunday, January 14th, 2024 (AoE), and your submissions should be sent to with the subject: CHI 2024 SV T-Shirt Design Contest

Design Details & Selection Process

You may consider incorporating elements of Honolulu, Hawai’i into your design, though this is not a requirement. What’s most important is that the design is respectful of local culture, engaging, and distinctive, allowing it to stand out in a crowd. Remember, SV T-shirts often serve as a form of uniform at our events. 🙂

Please send us front/back designs, noting that we cannot print on sleeves or the extreme edges of the shirts. Designs should be ONE colour. In general, this means a black or white design on a coloured shirt.

The imprint size is roughly 11″ (~28cm) wide and 13″ (~33cm) high, front or back. The design can contain more than one print (e.g., a large print on the back and a smaller print on the front).

You can find the CHI 2024 logo information here: [CHI2024 Design Package]

Submission Details

Mock-ups should be sent as PDF, JPG, or PNG in medium resolution. If your design is selected as a winning design, we will require the final version in a .eps or .ai format.

You may submit several designs or variations on a single design, should you so desire.

Please follow the following naming convention for each of your designs: lastname_firstname_tshirtdesign.ext

The deadline is Sunday, January 14th, 2024, at 23:59 AoE to submit your designs to with the subject: CHI 2024 SV T-Shirt Design Contest.

We will select a winner in the week following the end of the contest and notify the winner, as well as everyone who submitted designs. The selection process involves both SV-Chairs selection and a popular vote among ACs and OC members.

Here are some photos from previous SV T-shirts, courtesy of our wonderful past chair Haley MacLeod:

Thank you, and we’re looking forward to seeing your creativity!

Maximiliane Windl, Mikołaj P. Woźniak, and Yudai Tanaka
CHI 2024 SV Co-Chairs

Call For SVs

Who are Student Volunteers (SVs)?

Student volunteers have become an essential part of the organization of CHI. They play a major role in executing structural tasks – especially during the conference. Among other things, we hand out and check badges, monitor online sessions, show you where to find a paper session, restaurant, bathroom, or your lost water bottle, and help set up exciting demos, for example, by setting up nets for drones or build sculptures out of coke bottles, we also help figure out where the missing paper presenter is and why, oh why, the microphone isn’t working anymore. Along with many others, the student volunteers put A LOT of effort into helping CHI run smoothly.

SVs are also HCI researchers. Quite a few SVs have already published their research at CHI and have been attending conferences for a while. For others, CHI is a whole new experience, allowing them to see how research results are distributed and how the community interacts. In both cases, being an SV is an incredible opportunity to network with possible mentors, collaborators, and peers.

And here is the tricky bit: SVs are students! We are not trained event managers or AV technicians. We are volunteers and conference attendees. All SVs agree to an informal contract: in exchange for about 20 hours of their time (many put in much more), the conference waives their registration fees and provides daily lunch and breakfast (a lot of tasks start as early as 6:30 a.m., some go well through lunch, and others end as late as 8 pm). SVs still have to pay for their own housing and transportation. Workshops and courses are not covered either.

In the scope of their agreed hours, SVs engage in plenty of tasks, some of which are simple, while others require certain expertise or training. For this reason, we need some people who have done the job before and can teach the job to the next generation of SVs. This is the basic concept: returning SVs show incoming SVs how tasks work, and new students come up with new ideas on how to improve them.

How do I become an SV?

You must have had student status for at least one semester during the academic year before CHI to qualify for the program. We are more than happy to accept undergrad, graduate, and Ph.D. students. We need friendly, enthusiastic volunteers to help us out.

The SV lottery is open as of November 10, 2024, at The SV lottery registration will close on January 22, 2024. We expect to have about 180 spots in total. All other students who registered will be assigned a position on the waiting list. To sign up for your interest in being an SV, please visit, select the appropriate conference, and follow the steps to enroll.

There are four different pathways for you to become an SV, however, no matter what, you must enroll in the general selection process, where you may be selected by lottery: (1) you can simply apply for a SV position via; (2) you can also be nominated by members of the Program or Organizing Committees (note that this does not guarantee your position but increases the chance); (3) you can be selected as an institutional knowledge SV; or (4) you can win a slot through the T-shirt design competition.

To reiterate, in all cases (including nominated SVs), the student must be enrolled with CHI2024 in to be considered for a spot.

Important Dates

All times are in the Anywhere on Earth (AoE) time zone. When the deadline is day D, the last time to submit is when D ends AoE. Check your local time in AoE.

  • SV lottery registration open: Friday, Nov 10th, 2024
  • Close lottery: Monday, January 22nd, 2024
  • Announce results: Friday, January 26th, 2024

What Will I Do When I Volunteer?

For CHI2024 SVs, you will agree to a volunteer contract, in which you agree to:

  • In-person SVs: Work at least 20 hours
  • Show up on time to tasks
  • Attend an orientation session
  • Arrive at the conference by Saturday morning at the latest

In return, we commit to:

  • Waive your registration fee
  • Provide 2 meals a day on-site (breakfast and lunch)
  • Free SV t-shirt to be collected on site
  • Our fabulous SV thank-you party. There is always food, drinks, dancing, and fun!
  • More SV benefits TBA…

If you need to reach us, please always use the address so that the three of us receive it. Reply-to-all on our correspondence so we all stay in the loop and can better help you.

Nominated SVs

Each member of the program committee (e.g., SCs or ACs) and members of the organizing committee get to nominate one student. This pool of SVs accounts for 20% of the total slots for SVs. Nominations are collected until two days before the first day of the PC meeting (16th of January) via a form we will send to all ACs/OCs to place their recommendation.

From this selection pool, we pick about 30 to 40% based on the information provided by nominators. We look for strong recommendations on the person’s ability to perform SV-related tasks, we look for opportunities to increase the diversity of the SV group, and we look for people who would benefit the most from being an SV for the current year. The rest of the slots are assigned through a random lottery within the nominated pool. Students not selected at this stage will be added to the general lottery pool later.

Institutional Knowledge SVs

Institutional knowledge SVs are students who have been SVs at CHI before, are experienced with a variety of tasks, and can help train the incoming class of SVs. These SVs account for 20% of the total SV slots. All of these students were exceptional SVs in previous years (e.g., always on time AND very proactive AND helpful to others on/off duty, AND went above the requirements for their current task). Many of them are trained in specialized tasks. Unfortunately, due to the high competition for an SV slot, we can’t always accept all students who fit this description. We prioritize selecting a few exceptional SVs in specialized roles, the other slots are selected through a random lottery.

General SVs

The remaining 60% of the slots go through the current lottery system built into please check the “Become a Student Volunteer” blog post (coming soon) for details on how to apply. The system uses a random lottery to generate a waitlist. We reserve a few spots (up to 15%, about 16) for individuals on top of the waitlist who fulfill strategic criteria. Factors we considered in the past include whether individuals are local to the conference location, whether they have specialized knowledge (e.g., accessibility, photography, video editing), and whether they fulfill specific diversity criteria. These criteria are largely dependent on conference needs and are not limited to these examples. SVs are therefore encouraged to detail in their application how they may uniquely contribute to the conference to their best capacity. The remainder of the spots are fulfilled by waitlist order.

T-shirt Design Competition SV

The last way you could get an SV slot is by winning the t-shirt design competition.

For more details on design specifications, please check this blog post (coming soon) about the SV T-shirt Design Competition. This competition happens in TBD, where we accept t-shirt designs for the SV t-shirt. After an initial selection made by the SV chairs, a subset of the Organizing Committee and previous SV Chairs vote on which design is their favorite.The winner gets an SV spot.

And who are the SV chairs?

SV chairs are three senior SVs who have seen the process through multiple years of serving as SVs. The SV chair position is a two-year commitment This is because the CHI SV program is a beast. With 180 SVs each year, coordination with many conference chairs multiple stakeholders with different needs, and serving as an SV chair for CHI requires SV experience and training in the role. In the first year, the junior SV chair observes, learns, and helps with organizational tasks. They learn how to operate, how to address different types of requests, and how to manage an operation the size of a small startup.

Future SV chairs are selected based on their experience as SVs, their graduation timeline, and the specific needs of the conference that year.  The current SV chairs consider several candidates and make a recommendation to the General Chairs of someone they are confident will do a good job in organizing the SV program for the coming years. Sometimes, when there are special needs, the General Chairs of future CHIs are brought in earlier in this decision process to ensure that the “rollover” SV Chair will be able to attend to those needs (e.g., in locations where English is not as widely spoken or where cultural norms are significantly different).

As SV chairs, we invest more than 100 pre-conference hours planning SV tasks and ensuring the conference is adequately supported by the SV program. During the conference, we spend the majority of our time at the conference managing and addressing incoming requests. If you would like to be a future SV chair, make sure you are an SV at CHI (and other conferences as well), have higher responsibilities and tasks (volunteer for them!), and let us know that you are interested. Every year, we go through the process of picking a new junior chair, and that person can be you!

If you need to communicate with us, please always use the  address so that all of us receive it. Reply to all of our correspondence so all of us stay in the loop and we can help you better.

Frequently Asked Questions

We get a lot of emails with the same kinds of questions; this is not a made-up FAQ.

Q: I know the deadline for the lottery has passed, but I really, really want to be a student volunteer. Can you get me in?
A: You may go to at any time after the lottery is opened or even after it is run to put your name in the running. If the lottery has already been run, your name will simply be added to the end of the waiting list. If you will be attending CHI anyway, there is always a chance you may be able to be added at the last minute; you never know.

Q: I want to skip orientation, work way less than 20 hours, or arrive late. Can I still be an SV?
A: No, sorry, these are the minimum expectations we expect from everyone.
If, after you commit, extenuating circumstances appear (like volcanos erupting and other strange things), please communicate with us (to All we ask is for you to communicate your circumstances as soon as you realize a situation has come up.

Q: I didn’t get your emails and/or forgot to register by the deadlines you guys sent us, and I lost my spot as an SV. Can I get it back?
A: If this is due to you just not reading your emails, not taking care of your responsibilities, not keeping your email up to date in our system, forgetting, or similar things, then the answer is NO, no, you may not. If there are extenuating circumstances, please communicate with us (to All we ask is for you to communicate your circumstances as soon as you realize a situation has come up. (Yes, we’ll repeat this often).

Q: I was nominated for an SV spot by someone and got in. Will I have to do the same kind of work as other SVs?
A: Yes, the obligations are the same.


We are looking forward to meeting all of you!

Maximiliane Windl, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

Mikołaj P. Woźniak, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Germany

Yudai Tanaka, University of Chicago, USA




CHI 2024 – Papers track, post-round one outcomes report

NB — The numbers might not always work out here, there are missing data from the analyses due to conflicts.

This blog post covers the outcomes of the first round of reviewing for the CHI 2024 Papers track. Last week, authors were invited to revise and resubmit when at least one associate committee member (AC) recommended Revise and Resubmit or better. This short post provides analyses that might help to contextualise review recommendations across submissions. This post focuses on outcomes; we will be reflecting further on the review process and the huge contributions made by associate chairs (ACs) and reviewers in a future post.

Review scales

Before we go into the outcomes, a reminder of the scales that have been used during the CHI 2024 review process. Reviewers and ACs provide a recommendation (recommendation category out of 5 choices) and can further contextualise their recommendation based on originality, significance, and research quality (each a 5 point ordinal scale from Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High).

Short Name On Review Form Threshold for Revise and Resubmit
A I recommend Accept with Minor Revisions Yes
ARR I can go with either Accept with Minor Revisions or Revise and Resubmit Yes
RR I recommend Revise and Resubmit Yes
RRX I can go with either Reject or Revise and Resubmit No
X I recommend Reject No

Outcomes after the first round of reviews

CHI 2024 Papers received 4028 complete submissions. Four papers were withdrawn and 207 papers (5%) were desk rejected before going out to review. 1651 (41%) received at least one ‘RR’ (or better) recommendation from 1AC or 2AC and were put forward to round 2. 2166 papers (54%) did not receive at least one ‘RR’ (or better) recommendation from 1AC or 2AC, and were rejected as they did not meet the threshold for entering the next round.

Of the papers moving to the next stage of review, the decision process of 1586 submissions could be further analysed (the others were redacted from the raw data due to Analytics Chair conflicts). Of these submissions, 1095 (69%) proceeded to revise and resubmit because both ACs made a recommendation of RR or better (i.e., RR, ARR or A). Three hundred and sixty (23%) proceeded to revise and resubmit because the 1AC gave a recommendation of RR, but the 2AC gave an RRX or X recommendation (i.e., the 1AC recommendation carried the submission to revise and resubmit). In 131 cases (8%), the 1AC recommended RRX or X, but the 2AC recommended RR or better (i.e., the 2AC recommendation carried the submission into revise and resubmit).

Looking at the review recommendations more widely across 3,678 Reject and RR submissions (NB – Analytics Chair conflicts account for the ‘missing’ 139 submissions), we can identify forty submissions (1%) proceeding to RR with three or four A (accept) recommendations from ACs and reviewers. Two hundred and fifty submissions (6.8%) were rejected with four X recommendations.

Progression from RR to final decisions

It is not possible to directly relate RR/Reject decisions to “average” scores – only one AC needs to recommend RR and submissions go to revise and resubmit (79 submissions have gone through to revise and resubmit with one RR AC recommendation and three others at X or RRX). However, we can still observe that RRX (revise and resubmit/reject) was the review recommendation that authors were most likely to see amongst their reviews (2,599 submissions received one or more RRX). As you might expect, authors were least likely to find an A (accept) recommendation amongst their reviews (only 416 submissions received one or more A).

Even with reviews in hand, it’s useful to know where a given submission sits compared to others. One way to look at this is by calculating the proportion of “supportive” reviews for a given submission. This support is inferred from the actual recommendation of the reviewer, not the text of the review. Figure 1 shows the proportion of reviews recommending RR or better (i.e., RR, ARR, A) for each submission.

A bar chart showing the proportion of supportive (i.e., RR, ARR, A) recommendations across submissions. The y-axis is a count of submissions, the x-axis is 0-4, depending on how many supportive reviews a given submission has had.

Figure 1: How many supportive (A, ARR, RR) reviews does each submission have? With four reviews per submission, it’s somewhere between zero and four.

We can also break the recommendations down in the same way, but using A and ARR as indicators of support (rather than A, ARR and RR). Last year, 49% of submissions were invited to submit revisions. Of those submissions progressing to RR, 59% were subsequently accepted and 41% rejected. Considering the proportion of revised submissions accepted at CHI 2023, and imagining this measure of support translates directly into acceptance (caveats abound!), then it seems less likely for submissions that have no A/ARR reviews to be accepted.

‘Support’ (A+ARR) Reject Revise and Resubmit
# % # %
Zero 1986 91.7% 588 35.6%
One 174 8% 533 33.5%
Two 6 0.3% 262 15.9%
Three 0 0% 133 8.1%
Four 0 0% 115 7.0%

Sticking with the CHI 2023 data can also help give an idea of how things pan out in the end. We don’t have the data from the first round, so this plot is based on the final review recommendations after a second round of review. Reviewers could still choose A, ARR, RR, RRX, or X in round 2, even if only two decisions were meaningful: Reject in second round and Accept in second round. But it still gives an idea of where reviews might need to end up after round 2 for a submission to be accepted; an overwhelming majority of the submissions accepted after the round 2 (92%) had four recommendations of RR or better. Figure 2 shows this distribution.

A bar chart showing the proportion of supportive (i.e., RR, ARR, A) recommendations across submissions in relation to final recommendations and decisions for the CHI 2023 Papers track. The y-axis is a count of submissions, the x-axis is 0-4, depending on how many supportive reviews a given submission has had.

Figure 2: At CHI 2023, the vast majority of submissions that were accepted ended the Round 1 review process with four ‘supportive’ reviews of A, AAR or RR.

Whether you’re contemplating your revisions, or your manuscript has been rejected and you’re thinking about where to send your work next, spare a thought for the authors of 89 submissions who received a different recommendation for each of their four reviewers (8 were rejected, 81 advance to revise and resubmit).

Outcomes as a function of submission type

This year marks the resurrection of different categories of submissions under the Papers track. CHI in previous years solicited “Notes” – short submissions of up to four-pages plus references. Notes were last solicited at CHI 2017. This year, the call for papers identified three categories of submission: Short, Standard, and Excessively Long. Short submissions, of 5000 words or less, were “strongly encouraged”. Although not a facsimile of the old Note format, the call for Short submissions was intended to create a similar space for shorter pieces that perhaps make smaller contributions.

The table below shows a breakdown of submissions by type. It shows how many papers of each kind were submitted, and what the outcomes were for those papers. To keep things simple, we just focus on papers that went to full review and had either a revise and resubmit outcome or a reject outcome. We will ignore desk rejects and withdrawn papers.

Submission type Total submissions # moving to RR # rejected % moving to RR
Excessively long 58 27 31 46.6%
Short 490 110 380 22%
Standard 3269 1514 1755 46.3%

You can see that Excessively Long and Standard submissions move to RR at a similar rate. Short submissions are about half as likely as other submissions to move to RR. This pattern is similar to what we have seen in the past with Notes – acceptance rates are much lower than for ‘full’ papers.

Outcomes as a function of subcommittee

Our CHI 2024 blog post on submissions received broke down submission rates by subcommittee. How has variation across subcommittees fed into submission outcomes? To keep things straightforward again, let’s just consider submissions with RR and Reject decisions. These make up 95% of the decisions made and make plots more readable. Figure 3 shows that the User Experience subcommittee passed the lowest proportion of papers to RR (36%). The Critical and Sustainable Computing subcommittee passed the highest proportion of papers to RR (52%).

A bar chart showing the proportion of submissions moving to revise and resubmit for each of the CHI 2024 subcommittees.

Figure 3: What proportion of submissions to a given subcommittee have progressed to revise and resubmit?

In our CHI 2024 blog post on submissions received, we also showed the relative size of subcommittees in terms of the number of submissions that they received. Given the differences in the RR rates of the different subcommittees, the relative size of the subcommittees in terms of the number of papers under review has changed. Figure 4 shows that the User Experience subcommittee was biggest by number of submissions, but is now sixth biggest based on the number of submissions that remain under consideration.

A bar chart showing the count of submissions left in the CHI 2024 review process for each of the CHI 2024 subcommittees.

Figure 4: How many submissions in each subcommittee are still part of the CHI 2024 review process (and how many were submitted)?

Note that the final acceptance rate for each subcommittee will also vary. It is not necessarily the case that the rank order presented below will follow precisely for acceptance rates. These data from CHI 2023 show the difference between the RR rate (i.e., the proportion of non-desk rejected submissions invited to revise and resubmit) and the Accept rate (i.e., after RR). The difference between these two rates is as much as twelve percentage points. (Unsurprisingly, RR still very strongly correlates with Accept, r(16)=0.86, p<.001; higher RR rate yields higher Accept rate and vice versa.)

Subcommittee RR rate Accept rate Percentage points difference between RR and Accept
CompInt 54% 28% -28%
Critical 64% 34% -28%
Devices 66% 42% -24%
PeopleQual 56% 34% -24%
Games 48% 28% -22%
Privacy 54% 32% -22%
Systems 52% 28% -22%
Access 56% 36% -20%
Design 50% 28% -20%
Ibti 56% 36% -20%
IntTech 52% 32% -20%
Learning 44% 24% -20%
PeopleMixed 44% 24% -20%
PeopleQuant 50% 30% -20%
Viz 58% 38% -20%
Health 48% 30% -18%
UX 42% 24% -18%
Apps 46% 32% -16%

Bonus Chartjunk

In our CHI 2024 blog post on submissions received, we analysed new data that has only become available in PCS, the conference submission system, in this cycle. We considered when authors created their submissions for the Papers track, and when they made their final edits before the deadline. The general theme of the analyses was that authors do things at the last minute. As reviewers are largely drawn from largely the same pool as authors, are reviews also submitted at the last minute? It looks like reviewers generally accept reviews quickly (Figure 5)… and finish them at the last moment (Figure 6) – the deadline was the 25th October! (NB – we’ve taken the first complete submission of a review as the signal for completion, but many reviewers update their reviews several times before, during and after the discussion period.)

A histogram showing when reviewers accept invitations to review papers over the course of the review period. Reviews are accepted quite quickly.

Figure 5: How quickly do reviewers accept invitations to review? Quite quickly!

A histogram showing when reviewers return reviews over the course of the review period. Final reviews are returned at the last minute, for the most part.

Figure 6: How quickly do reviewers return their reviews? At the last minute!


It is not possible to produce useful datatables for all analyses, many of which require access to individual submission and review data that cannot be easily or safely shared. However, in the interests of transparency we are trying to make the data that support the analyses available where we can.

The data on the proportions of recommendations made by reviewers across individual reviews (not submissions!) is given by:

Recommendation n
A 556
ARR 1481
RR 3620
RRX 5042
X 4044

Figure 1 was plotted using this summary data:

Positivity Decision n
0 RR 0
0 Reject 1459
0.25 RR 86
0.25 Reject 534
0.5 RR 259
0.5 Reject 70
0.75 RR 599
0.75 Reject 1
1 RR 626
1 Reject 0

Figure 2 was plotted using this summary data:

Positivity Decision n
0 Accept 0
0 Reject 111
0.25 Accept 0
0.25 Reject 176
0.5 Accept 6
0.5 Reject 107
0.75 Accept 58
0.75 Reject 43
1 Accept 722
1 Reject 15

Figure 3 and 4 were plotted using this data:

Subcommittee Submissions total Submissions to RR RR Rate
Access 267 136 51%
Apps 200 90 45%
CompInt 236 90 38%
Critical 183 96 52%
Design 252 103 41%
Devices 122 57 47%
Games 138 53 38%
Health 264 107 41%
Ibti 161 73 45%
IntTech 271 107 39%
Learning 212 88 42%
PeopleMixed 198 80 40%
PeopleQual 233 95 41%
PeopleStat 216 92 43%
Privacy 185 94 51%
Systems 259 125 48%
UX 270 98 36%
Viz 150 67 45%

The ‘bonus chartjunk’ plots are histograms produced from PCS logs, rather than a summary table, and so it is not possible to share this data.

Hybrid Experience at CHI 2024

Designing a technical programme for a conference like CHI is complex, often with many directly competing needs and wants. Given how many constraints need to be balanced, all of our decisions in designing the technical programme are guided by the following key principles.

Travel is Not Required to Publish

Decoupling publishing of archival work from travel and in-person presentation is an important step to support more inclusive publishing. There are many reasons why someone can’t or won’t be able to travel to CHI 2024, and we want to send a clear message that traveling is not required for disseminating knowledge and participating in scholarly discourse. All the Calls for Participation have had clear details around what requirements are in place for participation and what modes of presentation are available for all venues.

Live is Synchronous, Remote is Asynchronous

After lessons learned from CHI 2022 and CHI 2023, it is clear that a synchronous hybrid experience would not be possible for CHI 2024. Synchronous hybrid (e.g. a live session connecting in-person and remote attendees) will not happen for Papers sessions in any form for CHI 2024. In light of this constraint, we are focusing on creative solutions to deliver a hybrid experience that weaves together the best of synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for all attendees.

Why We Attend Conferences

Fundamentally, we attend conferences to share knowledge and participate in scholarly discourse. What this looks like will be a little bit different for every person, where some people want to soak up new knowledge all week, some want to ask questions and have debates, and others want to focus on reconnecting and expanding their networks. Everyone conferences differently, so we’re designing a hybrid programme that supports key activities in synchronous and asynchronous ways. Registering for the conference, in-person or remotely, is how you gain access to the conference, disseminate your work, and participate in scholarly discourse at CHI 2024.

Disseminate Your Work

Our primary mode of dissemination is through publication in the ACM Digital Library. All authors, regardless of in-person or remote registration, will have their work published in the ACM Digital Library, in the ACM CHI Proceedings, or ACM CHI Extended Abstracts.

Authors also have the opportunity to give a presentation during the conference. Further details about presentation formats for in-person and remote attendees are described in the following sections for each venue.

Asking and Answering Questions

One of the most important parts of participating in scholarly discourse is to respond to questions about your own work. Contributing questions to the scholarly discourse is crucial, offering new perspectives, challenging ideas, and advancing the field. We will use multiple platforms for collecting and archiving questions for all authors, which will provide opportunities to respond to questions about your work during the conference and ask questions for all the conference content.

Networking and Making New Connections

What is special about a conference week is that everyone has committed time and energy to being present in-person or remote. For all attendees, we aim to create opportunities for face-to-face, remote, and hybrid interactions that help people nurture their networks during the conference week.

Papers and Journals

As the archival and largest track in the CHI conference, Papers is often a special case. We’ve given particular attention to designing a Papers programme and invited Journal presentations to support in-person and remote attendees. Questions and discussions for all authors will be focused around tools like Slido, Discord, and the SIGCHI Conference Programmes progressive web application (PWA), allowing equal access to participation for all attendees.

In-person presenters will give a live presentation in sessions organised by topic. Questions will be facilitated by the session chair from the platforms available to ensure quality dialogues after paper presentations. Authors will also be able to respond to questions on these platforms throughout the conference week.

Remote presenters will be organised into remote sessions by topic. These sessions will not have synchronous time slots in the conference programme, but will have an asynchronous presence throughout the conference week. Remote author pre-recorded presentation videos will be shown continuously throughout the conference on the exhibit floor with QR codes to access content in the PWA, will have channels on Discord, will have online watch parties, and remote session chairs to support asynchronous engagement.

Extended Abstracts Venues

Venues in the Extended Abstracts have options for in-person, hybrid, or remote authoring or attendance based on each specific venue. The following table gives an overview of the in-person and remote options for all extended abstracts venues.

Case Studies, LWB, and alt.chi: In-Person and Remote Asynchronous

Case Studies, Late Breaking Work, and alt.chi authors will have live presentations for in-person attendees and pre-recorded videos for remote attendees. Following the model of the papers and journals presentations, in-person authors will give a live presentation and remote authors will give a pre-recorded presentation. Questions will be facilitated by in-person or virtual session chairs using tools like Slido, Discord, and the PWA. Remote author pre-recorded presentation videos will also be shown continuously throughout the conference on the exhibit floor with QR codes to access content in the PWA, will have channels on Discord, will have online watch parties, and remote session chairs to support asynchronous engagement.

In-person audience Remote audience
Live presentation Pre-recorded videos and questions facilitated through online platforms
Remote presenters Pre-recorded videos played continuously on the exhibit floor,
and questions facilitated through online platforms
Pre-recorded videos and questions facilitated through online platforms

Keynotes: Live Streamed

Keynotes will be on-site and will be streamed live for remote attendees, with questions facilitated on Slido.

In-person audience Remote audience
Live keynote, questions on Slido Live-streamed keynote, questions on Slido

Panels: Live Streamed Hybrid

Panels have a flexible format so that the organizers have the choice of running them as in-person only, or hybrid with remote panelists. All panels will be live streamed for the remote audience.

In-person audience Remote audience
Live panel discussions, questions on Slido Live streamed panel discussion, questions on Slido
Remote presenters Live streamed panel discussion, questions on Slido Live streamed panel discussion, questions on Slido

Workshops and SIGs: In-Person, Remote, or Hybrid Venues

Workshops and SIGS have flexible formats determined by the organisers. Workshop organizers have the choice of running it as in-person only, or hybrid. Organisers can use tools like Zoom, Discord, Slido, and the PWA to facilitate in-person, remote, and hybrid interactions.

In-person audience Remote audience
In-person live engagement Flexible options based on workshop or SIG organisers.
Remote presenters Flexible options based on workshop or SIG organisers. Flexible options based on workshop or SIG organisers.

Courses, Doctoral Consortium, and Video Showcase: In-Person or Remote

Courses have a flexible format determined by the organisers. Course organizers have the option of running their course as fully in-person or fully remote. Organisers can use tools like Zoom, Discord, Slido, and the PWA to deliver their course in person or remote.

The Doctoral Consortium will run in two complementary formats to support students who attend in-person or remotely. The In-person DC will be a live event during the conference where in-person attendance is expected, while the Remote DC will run asynchronously online for remote attendees.

In-person audience Remote audience
In-person Course
In-person Doctoral Consortium
Remote presenters Remote Course
Remote Doctoral Consortium

The video showcase will run in a dedicated session during the conference, and videos will be available through the PWA and the ACM Digital Library. Presenters can be either in-person or remote, as the special session will be chaired by the track chairs and does not include live questions and answers.

In-person audience Remote audience
In-person or remote presenters Pre-recorded videos played in dedicated conference session. Pre-recorded videos available in conference proceedings.

Interactivity and Student Competitions: In-Person Only

A small number of venues are only suitable for in-person interactions and have limited opportunities for remote authors or attendees within these tracks.

Interactivity presenters are expected to attend the conference and give a live demonstration of their work. Remote presentation is not possible for this venue, but remote attendees will be able to see video demonstrations and the extended abstract that describes the demonstration.

The Student Research Competition, Student Design Competition, and Student Game Competition will run as in-person sessions, where students are expected to participate in person. Remote attendees will be able to see the extended abstract that describes each project, and winners will be announced at the live streamed closing keynote.

In-person audience Remote audience
In-person demonstration
In-person student competition participation
Extended abstracts, videos, and supplement in the conference proceedings
Remote presenters

Papers Track, Post-Submission Report

NB — The numbers might not always work out here, there are missing data from the analyses due to conflicts.

Increase in Submissions

CHI 2024’s Papers track has received 4046 complete submissions. This is a significant increase compared to 2023 (3,182, increase of 27%) and 2022 (2,579, increase of 57%). The chart below shows the number of complete submissions to the Papers track over the last ten iterations of the conference. The dip caused by the pandemic is visible in 2021-23. (Recall that although the 2020 conference was cancelled, the Papers track was finalized prior to the beginning of the pandemic.) A linear model has been fit to the pre-pandemic submission data and plotted along with the standard error. Although this year represents a very large increase in submissions over the last couple of years, the number received is on (linear) trend1.

A bar chart showing the number of Papers submissions to CHI over the last decade. A linear fit has been added to the plot.

Distribution of Submissions by Author

How many submissions have individual authors made? The 4046 complete submissions were produced through the collective efforts of 12924 authors (i.e., M=3.2 authors/submission). Looking at complete submissions only, the mean number of submissions per author is 1.5 (SD = 1.4) with a mode of one. Of the 12924 authors, 9896 are authors on a single submission. The 4046 complete submissions will, if they all go to full review, require 16,184 reviews. The 100 most prolific authors have made 1155 submissions between them (i.e., generated a review load of 4620 reviews). Any author making nine or more submissions is among the 100 most prolific authors.

Requests for reviews went out last week. Each submission has, on average, 3.2 authors. Where a submission has two authors, each author will need to provide two reviews to cover the load their submission has created. A mythical average paper, with 3.2 authors, will need each author to provide 1.25 reviews. Associate Chairs will be providing a huge amount of labour to this process, meaning the effective external load is lower. However, we really do need colleagues who have submitted papers to accept reviews where they have relevant expertise. If you’re contacted by an AC still struggling to find a reviewer, please do your best to help.

Once we are deeper into the review process, we will be producing an analysis of each paper’s review `coverage’, i.e., the extent to which the authors of a given submission have contributed reviews back to the pool.

Geographical Distribution of Submission Authors

CHI 2024 has received submissions from authors in 79 countries and territories2. Submissions were made from five countries in 2023 from which no submissions were made in 2024, but submissions were received from 16 countries from which no submissions were made in 2023. This means we have, net, eleven more countries represented at CHI 2024 than at CHI 2023. Here are the countries from which authors are