CHI 2024 encourages submission of a broad range of papers relevant to human-computer interaction (HCI).
The primary criterion for evaluation of all papers remains the research contribution to HCI – there are many ways a paper can contribute and the CHI Program Committee will strongly encourage reviewers to recognize this. In all cases, we do our best to give every paper professional reviews and a meaningful discussion within the context of the submitted work. The process is overseen by Subcommittee Chairs – people with significant experience and a broad view of the field of HCI. They will adopt an inclusive perspective on what makes a valid research contribution.
In all cases, a CHI Paper must make an original research contribution. Below you will find some of the types of contributions a paper can make to HCI, and the associated criteria that a reviewer may use to assess this type of contribution.
Development or Refinement of Interface Artifacts or Techniques
Development or refinement of interface artifacts or techniques concerns creating and iterating as a process that creates reusable knowledge. Artifacts / techniques created may be completely novel, or may build on, reframe, and/or critique artifacts / techniques that are already well-known in HCI. Should your contribution be in this area, your paper will likely include answers to the following:
- Do you motivate a real problem that is worth solving? For example, do you justify the beneficial value of this artifact or technique not only in isolation but within the global context of its expected uses?
- Is your approach inclusive? Do you clearly lay out who will or will not benefit from what you made? Do you contextualize why particular groups have been excluded? Are you able to point to ways forward to include them?
- Do you provide context, where you clearly review what is already known and what limitations exist in knowledge about this artifact or technique?
- Do you describe the artifact or technique in sufficient detail for others to replicate it?
- Do you include a rigorous and convincing validation of the artifact / technique (e.g., empirical study, usability study, field study as appropriate), where you clearly show not only that incremental gains exist, but that the gains are of practical significance?
Understanding users contributions analyze people (or other entities); their behaviors; their situations and context; their perceptual, cognitive, and behavioral capabilities; relationships they might engage in and build with and through the artifacts; and/or their interaction with artifacts. Such an understanding forms the background of many HCI and software engineering disciplines, where it serves to inspire and ground new design directions or where it forms the core of a requirements analysis. Your paper will likely include answers to the following questions:
- Do you identify the population you are studying and account for the diversity (or lack thereof) of the population?
- Do you clearly and transparently and transparently describe the methodology and mechanics behind the analysis (e.g., ethnographic, field investigation, interviews, contextual inquiry)?
- Do you identify your positionality relative to the research so that readers can more easily understand what perspectives, past experience, context, and/or biases that you are bringing into the work?
- Do you clearly describe what new understandings were gained?
- Do you show how the value of this new understanding is relevant to HCI? For example, you might show where it increases our understanding of human behavior as related to HCI; explain how it adds insight into the organization of social settings; develop implications for design; argue for how it leads us to reconsider prior perspectives of human behavior; or help us analyze other relevant contexts.
Systems, Tools, Architectures, and Infrastructure
Systems, tools, architectures, and infrastructure contributions address the underlying software and technology associated with a novel interactive application, interface feature, interface design, or development tool. Your paper will likely include answers to the following questions:
- Do you show that the idea is original, of interest, and valuable to a reasonably broad subset of the CHI community?
- Is the idea placed in context, where you detail the expected situation, tasks and users?
- Is your user base inclusive and do you address how it might be more so?
- Are you clear about what has been implemented and what is speculation, design, and/or future work?
- Do you provide sufficient information for an experienced researcher to implement a similar system?
- Can the system work within its proposed settings, or are there significant obstacles to its use?
- Do you validate the idea? Validation could be by sound argumentation, reflection of experiences, user studies, or other evidence proving its value. For example, do you demonstrate that you make new or more functional interfaces practical or enable dramatically easier creation of existing interface techniques? Or do you demonstrate performance gains that clearly impact the user experience? Or do you reflect on experiences using the contribution to create interfaces or provide other evidence proving its value? (Note that a good systems paper does not necessarily require a user study, but it does require an appropriate and reasonable validation.)
Methodology contributions address a novel approach or variation thereof that helps us better design or evaluate an HCI artifact, class of artifacts, their setting and use practices, and/or understanding the implications of artifact implementation and use. Methodology contributions improve how we do what we do. The method may be intended for use in research or development settings (or both), but the paper should be clear about the intended audience. Your paper will likely include answers to the following questions:
- Is the methodology novel (as contextualized with prior work and insights into motivation)?
- Does the methodology sufficiently include a range of groups of people and/or work without assumptions about a group of users?
- Do you show how the methodology builds on or contrasts with related work?
- Does the methodology have relevance and importance to HCI practice and/or research?
- Is the methodology described in sufficient detail so that others can use it?
- Have you demonstrated the value of the methodology? This might be by showing how it helps product design, development, and use; pointing to ways that it better includes populations of people; by demonstrating its use in a particular setting; by contrasting the results obtained with a competing methodology; or by showing how its use improved the process it was intended to address.
Contributions to theory address principles, concepts, or models on which work in HCI might be based. Your paper will likely include answers to the following questions:
- Is the theory novel or a significant variation of an existing theory?
- Is the theory understandable by a general HCI practitioner as well as an expert?
- Do you show how the theory is situated with respect to other theories, and how it builds upon them?
- Does the theory have relevance and importance to HCI practice and/or research?
- Has the value of the theory been demonstrated, e.g., by showing how it helps describe, predict and/or influence the design of an interactive application or setting, or understanding how and why particular technical artifacts are used in practice?
- Does the theory recast existing work in other areas in a way that provides greater value to an HCI practitioner / researcher?
Innovation, Creativity, and Vision
Contributions of innovation, creativity, and vision represent significant leaps in how a human interface might appear, behave, or be used or a new invention that significantly enables new styles of human interfaces. While thought pieces are possible, proof of concept implementations and demonstrations are favored. Your paper will likely include answers to the following questions:
- Do you clearly detail the idea?
- Is the idea novel or a significant variation of an existing idea?
- In transforming HCI, does your idea include a diverse range of potential users?
- Do you convincingly describe the potential significance and impact of this work, where you clearly argue about its significance, how it enables a new class of user interfaces or user experiences, and how it can affect future generations of users?
- Do you consider potential ramifications of the transformation you propose, e.g., future dangers, ways in which the work might negatively impact groups of people or societies, and/or nefarious uses?
- Do you suggest how the innovation, vision, or design might be adopted in practice, e.g., by reflection, by probes, or by case studies?
- Do you stimulate thought on new ways to interact with technology, or how new cultural meanings will be applied to the technology we build?
Argument papers contribute provocative essays. They present the author’s well-supported arguments about a topic of significant interest to a relatively broad segment of the CHI community. They have well-supported claims, including consideration of other perspectives, and/or data from research or practice, if applicable. They are expected to have a stimulating effect on the CHI community. Your paper will likely include answers to the following questions:
- Do you clearly show that this is a topic of significant interest to a relatively broad segment of the CHI audience?
- Is it provocative?
- Do you consider any potential harms that could come from the argument?
- Will it have high impact on HCI? That is, will it stimulate significant discussion and, perhaps, changes in our practices?
- Is the argument well-founded? That is, is it well argued? Is it supported by facts?
- Does it incorporate other points of view and perspectives, and does it consider them in a balanced fashion?
Validation and Replication
Validation and replication studies consolidate what the CHI field knows. Your paper will likely include answers to the following questions:
- Why is a replication needed and important? In particular, do you explain why there is some uncertainty about the reliability or generalizability of the existing finding, and that resolving that uncertainty has important implications for theory or practice?
- What is the same and what has changed in the method (e.g., experimenter, participants, software, hardware, measures, procedures) from the original study?
- What is important about the similarity or divergence of results?