DOCSLIB.ORG

CHI 2015 Conference Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q1 Was CHI 2015 worth your time and money? Answered: 563 Skipped: 135 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Yes No Answer Choices Responses Yes 92.18% 519 No 7.82% 44 Total 563 1 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q2 Please rate the conference sessions/activities at CHI.Select one choice for each row; if you did not attend, mark "didn't attend": Answered: 689 Skipped: 9 alt.chi Asian CHI Symposia Case Studies Courses Doctoral Consortium Interactivity (Demos) Invited Talks Journal papers at the... Panels Papers/Notes SIGs Student Design Competition Student Games Competition Student Research... Works-in- progre ss (Posters) Workshops Opening plenary: Lou... Tuesday morning talk... Wednesday morning talk... Thursday morning talk... Closing plenary: Psy 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Didn't attend Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Didn't attend Total Weighted Average alt.chi 0.15% 1.48% 4.73% 18.02% 9.01% 66.62% 1 10 32 122 61 451 677 4.03 Asian CHI Symposia 0.15% 0.59% 1.63% 3.71% 4.45% 89.47% 1 4 11 25 30 603 674 4.11 Case Studies 0.30% 0.89% 5.51% 8.93% 3.57% 80.80% 2 6 37 60 24 543 672 3.76 Courses 1.04% 1.93% 3.56% 12.76% 7.57% 73.15% 7 13 24 86 51 493 674 3.89 2 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Doctoral Consortium 0.00% 0.00% 1.95% 2.69% 3.29% 92.07% 0 0 13 18 22 615 668 4.17 Interactivity (Demos) 2.07% 6.37% 15.70% 42.67% 14.22% 18.96% 14 43 106 288 96 128 675 3.75 Invited Talks 3.29% 8.67% 12.41% 23.62% 11.06% 40.96% 22 58 83 158 74 274 669 3.52 Journal papers at the conference 0.45% 2.68% 7.29% 32.44% 15.18% 41.96% 3 18 49 218 102 282 672 4.02 Panels 1.33% 3.25% 7.84% 23.37% 9.02% 55.18% 9 22 53 158 61 373 676 3.79 Papers/Notes 0.74% 2.50% 8.09% 47.35% 37.65% 3.68% 5 17 55 322 256 25 680 4.23 SIGs 0.15% 0.60% 3.43% 11.49% 6.12% 78.21% 1 4 23 77 41 524 670 4.05 Student Design Competition 0.30% 0.74% 3.27% 10.57% 5.65% 79.46% 2 5 22 71 38 534 672 4.00 Student Games Competition 0.30% 0.60% 4.77% 13.86% 8.49% 71.98% 2 4 32 93 57 483 671 4.06 Student Research Competition 0.15% 0.45% 2.84% 9.42% 4.93% 82.21% 1 3 19 63 33 550 669 4.04 Works-in-progress (Posters) 1.19% 4.15% 14.84% 35.46% 15.28% 29.08% 8 28 100 239 103 196 674 3.84 Workshops 0.30% 1.20% 5.23% 15.10% 13.00% 65.17% 2 8 35 101 87 436 669 4.13 Opening plenary: Lou Yongqi 10.93% 13.74% 18.17% 17.43% 11.52% 28.21% 74 93 123 118 78 191 677 3.07 Tuesday morning talk: Donghoon Chang 10.47% 9.44% 11.80% 10.18% 6.05% 52.06% 71 64 80 69 41 353 678 2.83 Wednesday morning talk: David Min 5.90% 6.49% 8.55% 10.03% 6.05% 62.98% 40 44 58 68 41 427 678 3.10 Thursday morning talk: Susan Dumais 1.78% 3.42% 7.58% 14.26% 10.85% 62.11% 12 23 51 96 73 418 673 3.76 Closing plenary: Psy 6.05% 7.52% 12.68% 23.01% 30.53% 20.21% 41 51 86 156 207 137 678 3.81 3 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q3 Please rate the conference events.Select one choice for each row; if you did not attend, mark "didn't attend": Answered: 683 Skipped: 15 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Conference Exhibits Job Fair Joint Town Hall Video Reception & Hospitality Meeting Showcase Exhibits Reception Grand... Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Didn't attend Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Didn't attend Total Weighted Average Conference Reception & Exhibits Grand Opening 2.50% 5.14% 13.07% 42.44% 25.70% 11.16% 17 35 89 289 175 76 681 3.94 Exhibits 3.10% 5.91% 20.53% 41.51% 15.21% 13.74% 21 40 139 281 103 93 677 3.69 Job Fair 5.76% 5.91% 14.77% 11.82% 3.55% 58.20% 39 40 100 80 24 394 677 3.04 Joint Hospitality Reception 1.92% 3.24% 6.64% 17.40% 9.00% 61.80% 13 22 45 118 61 419 678 3.74 Town Hall Meeting 0.30% 1.04% 4.01% 6.82% 4.30% 83.53% 2 7 27 46 29 563 674 3.84 Video Showcase 1.04% 0.89% 6.51% 13.02% 11.54% 67.01% 7 6 44 88 78 453 676 4.00 4 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q4 Please rate the conference overall (please select one choice for each row): Answered: 688 Skipped: 10 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Overall Kept up Content Content Content Content Rating with the was was was met my latest interesting valuable to valuable to overall trends my... me... needs Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Don't care Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Don't care Total Weighted Average Overall Rating 0.73% 3.81% 12.01% 56.66% 26.21% 0.59% 5 26 82 387 179 4 683 4.04 Kept up with the latest trends 0.29% 5.39% 11.50% 48.33% 31.15% 3.35% 2 37 79 332 214 23 687 4.08 Content was interesting 0.44% 3.65% 9.49% 51.09% 35.04% 0.29% 3 25 65 350 240 2 685 4.17 Content was valuable to my organization 1.02% 5.99% 14.74% 45.26% 30.66% 2.34% 7 41 101 310 210 16 685 4.01 Content was valuable to me personally 1.17% 4.09% 10.53% 45.47% 38.60% 0.15% 8 28 72 311 264 1 684 4.16 Content met my overall needs 1.17% 6.29% 14.62% 52.34% 25.44% 0.15% 8 43 100 358 174 1 684 3.95 5 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q5 What is the value you received from attending CHI 2015? (please check all that apply) Answered: 686 Skipped: 12 5k 4k 3k 2k 1000 0 Present my work Get feedback on my work Learn new material Seek job opportunities Meet new friends and colleagues Renew relationships with others Expand my business opportunities Visit an interesting location Get an overview of the field Get new ideas and inspiration Other (please specify) Answer Choices Responses Present my work 61.22% 420 Get feedback on my work 55.69% 382 Learn new material 70.12% 481 Seek job opportunities 10.35% 71 Meet new friends and colleagues 70.99% 487 Renew relationships with others 60.35% 414 Expand my business opportunities 9.33% 64 Visit an interesting location 55.98% 384 Get an overview of the field 51.90% 356 Get new ideas and inspiration 77.55% 532 Other (please specify) 2.04% 14 Total Respondents: 686 6 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q6 How did the following meet your needs? Please make one selection for each row. Answered: 688 Skipped: 10 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Conference web site Submission process Registration process Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent N/A Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent N/A Total Weighted Average Conference web site 3.20% 6.83% 17.30% 49.27% 22.24% 1.16% 22 47 119 339 153 8 688 3.81 Submission process 0.59% 5.13% 14.52% 44.28% 18.91% 16.57% 4 35 99 302 129 113 682 3.91 Registration process 2.47% 6.10% 13.37% 53.63% 22.09% 2.33% 17 42 92 369 152 16 688 3.89 7 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q8 Based on your experiences at CHI 2015 would you recommend the conference to others? Answered: 681 Skipped: 17 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Yes No Answer Choices Responses Yes 92.66% 631 No 7.34% 50 Total 681 8 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q11 How important are workshops to your choice to attend CHI? Answered: 599 Skipped: 99 1000 800 600 400 200 0 I attend primarily for the workshops Workshops somewhat influence my decision Workshops make no difference to me Answer Choices Responses I attend primarily for the workshops 6.84% 41 Workshops somewhat influence my decision 44.07% 264 Workshops make no difference to me 49.08% 294 Total 599 9 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q12 Which types of sessions do you believe could be omitted? (check all that apply) Answered: 308 Skipped: 390 1000 800 600 400 200 0 alt.chi Case Studies Conference Reception & Exhibits Grand Opening Courses Doctoral Consortium Exhibits Industry Tours Interactivity Hospitality Receptions (Wednesday) Keynotes Panels Papers and notes presentations Posters/Work-in-Progress Morning Plenaries SIGs Workshops Answer Choices Responses alt.chi 20.13% 62 Case Studies 19.48% 60 Conference Reception & Exhibits Grand Opening 5.19% 16 Courses 16.23% 50 Doctoral Consortium 7.79% 24 Exhibits 12.66% 39 Industry Tours 25.65% 79 Interactivity 5.19% 16 Hospitality Receptions (Wednesday) 15.91% 49 Keynotes 10.71% 33 Panels 12.99% 40 Papers and notes presentations 5.84% 18 Posters/Work-in-Progress 11.69% 36 Morning Plenaries 39.61% 122 11.69% 36 SIGs Workshops 4.22% 13 Total Respondents: 308 10 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q13 What media did you use to plan for and track CHI 2015 while it was in progress? Answered: 630 Skipped: 68 2k 1.6k 1.2k 800 400 0 Printed program guide Video Previews Conference program CHI Web application (CHI 2015 Mobile App) CHI iPhone application (CHI 2015 Mobile App) CHI Android application (CHI 2015 Mobile App) Flickr Facebook Google Plus Pinterest Twitter Weibo Answer Choices Responses Printed program guide 61.27% 386 Video Previews 15.08% 95 Conference program 45.08% 284 CHI Web application (CHI 2015 Mobile App) 25.40% 160 CHI iPhone application (CHI 2015 Mobile App) 43.17% 272 CHI Android application (CHI 2015 Mobile App) 32.22% 203 Flickr 0.79% 5 Facebook 12.86% 81 Google Plus 0.63% 4 Pinterest 0.00% 0 Twitter 15.08% 95 Weibo 0.79% 5 Total Respondents: 630 11 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q14 If you used Video Previews, how valuable was it as part of your conference experience? Answered: 455 Skipped: 243 500 400 300 200 100 0 Not valuable, mostly used as a novelty A little valuable, but mostly depended on paper or web program Quite valuable, I consulted it regularly Essential, I used it for planning or guidance nearly every session I don’t know what Video Previews are Answer Choices Responses Not valuable, mostly used as a novelty 16.26% 74 A little valuable, but mostly depended on paper or web program 29.89% 136 Quite valuable, I consulted it regularly 17.14% 78 Essential, I used it for planning or guidance nearly every session 9.45% 43 I don’t know what Video Previews are 27.25% 124 Total 455 12 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q15 If you used the Mobile Program App, how valuable was it as part of your conference experience? Answered: 586 Skipped: 112 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Not valuable, mostly used as a novelty A little valuable, but mostly depended on paper or web program Quite valuable, I consulted it regularly Essential, I used it for planning or guidance nearly every session I did not use the Mobile Program App Answer Choices Responses Not valuable, mostly used as a novelty 2.22% 13 A little valuable, but mostly depended on paper or web program 12.97% 76 Quite valuable, I consulted it regularly 27.30% 160 Essential, I used it for planning or guidance nearly every session 44.88% 263 I did not use the Mobile Program App 12.63% 74 Total 586 13 / 39 CHI 2015 Conference Survey Q16 CHI 2015 had some changes.
Recommended publications
  • Frederick Phillips Brooks, Jr

    Frederick Phillips Brooks, Jr

    May 13, 2005 Frederick Phillips Brooks, Jr. Department of Computer Science 413 Granville Road University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27514-2723 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175 (919) 942-2529 (919) 962-1931 (919) 962-1799 Fax Born 19 April 1931; Durham, NC [email protected] Married, three children: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~brooks Kenneth P. Brooks, 8/14/58 Roger G. Brooks, 12/25/61 Barbara B. LaDine, 2/24/65 EDUCATION Ph.D., Harvard University, Applied Mathematics (Computer Science), 1956; Howard H. Aiken, advisor; dissertation: The Analytic Design of Automatic Data Processing Systems S.M., Harvard University, Applied Mathematics (Computer Science), 1955 A.B. summa cum laude, Duke University, Physics, 1953. First in class of 1953. TEACHING EXPERIENCE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Computer Science Kenan Professor of Computer Science, 1975- Professor of Computer Science, 1964-75 Chairman, 1964-1984; founder Twente Technical University, Enschede, The Netherlands: Visiting Professor, 1970 Columbia University: Adjunct Assistant Professor, 1960-61 Vassar College: Visiting Instructor, 1958 IBM Systems Research Institute, Voluntary Education Program, and Summer Student Program Teacher, 1957-59 DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE IBM Corporation Poughkeepsie, New York Corporate Processor Manager for Development of System/360 Computer Systems, 1961-1965 Manager of Operating System/360, 1964-65 Manager, System/360 Hardware Development, Data Systems Division, 1961-64 Systems Planning Manager, Data Systems Division (8000 series et al.),
  • The Changing Shape of the Computing World

    The Changing Shape of the Computing World

    Outside the Box — The Changing Shape of the Computing World Steve Cunningham Computer Science California State University Stanislaus Turlock, CA 95382 [email protected] http://www.cs.csustan.edu/~rsc Something happened to computing while many of us were busy practicing or teaching our craft, and computing is not quite the same thing we learned. We can ignore this change and others will take our place and teach about it, but they will not have the context and the skill to understand the technology behind it and to carry it forward to the success it should have. And if others carry that torch, computer science will be stunted because we didn't recognize and respond to the opportunity. What happened? Simply this—that Xerox and Apple and, yes, Microsoft opened up the box labeled “CAUTION: Computer Inside” and let the user into the computing picture. Users responded hesitantly but increasingly eagerly and now expect the computer to work for them instead of their working for the computer. Every application now in wide use, and any system that supports a general market, has evolved to meet that expectation. Any computing education that does not pay attention to the user’s role in computing is missing the most vibrant and exciting part of computing today. As it says at the top of this page, you are reading an editorial, not an academic paper. As an editorial, this note represents my personal passion and commitment to the user communication part of computing that the “official” computing establishment has long discounted, and I appreciate John Impagliazzo’s offer of this forum to make my case that computer science is missing the boat in not understanding the need to reshape computer science education to fill this void.
  • VMV 2015 Vision, Modeling and Visualization

    VMV 2015 Vision, Modeling and Visualization

    VMV 2015 Vision, Modeling and Visualization Aachen, Germany October 07 – 10, 2015 General Chairs Leif Kobbelt Program Chairs David Bommes Tobias Ritschel Thomas Schultz Proceedings Production Editor Dieter Fellner (TU Darmstadt & Fraunhofer IGD, Germany) In cooperation with the Eurographics Association DOI: 10.2312/vmv.20152020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks. Copyright c 2015 by the Eurographics Association Postfach 2926, 38629 Goslar, Germany Published by the Eurographics Association –Postfach 2926, 38629 Goslar, Germany– in cooperation with Institute of Computer Graphics & Knowledge Visualization at Graz University of Technology and Fraunhofer IGD (Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research), Darmstadt ISBN 978-3-905674-95-8 The electronic version of the proceedings is available from the Eurographics Digital Library at http://diglib.eg.org Table of Contents TableofContents ...........................................................................iii International Program Committee . ............................................................v Sponsors . .................................................................................vi AuthorIndex...............................................................................vii InvitedTalks ..............................................................................viii
  • Opinion Poll on ACM Affiliation for the Symposium on Computational Geometry

    Opinion Poll on ACM Affiliation for the Symposium on Computational Geometry

    Opinion Poll on ACM affiliation for the Symposium on Computational Geometry Dear SoCG community, Since its start 27 years ago, SoCG has always been affiliated to ACM. This means that the proceedings are published by ACM, and that the symposium is organized “sponsored by ACM” (more precisely, sponsored by ACM SIGACT & ACM SIGGRAPH) or “in cooperation with ACM”. The latter happened only a couple of times, namely when SoCG was in Korea in 2007 and when it was in Denmark in 2009. Being affiliated to ACM has certain advantages, but also certain disadvantages, as detailed below. Hence, at the business meeting of this year’s SoCG in Paris, an alternative was discussed: organizing SoCG as an independent symposium, with the proceedings being published by Dagstuhl in their LIPIcs series (see below). A straw poll was taken, and the vast majority of the participants wanted the Steering Committee to investigate this issue further, which we do through this opinion poll. We hope you want to participate in this important poll. The opinion poll consists of three simple questions stated below: one about your preference for the future of SoCG, and two about your relation to SoCG and your current position. You can participate in this poll by sending your answers to [email protected] (do *not* vote by replying to this email). The poll closes November 21, 2011 . All votes will be treated confidentially. Before voting, please first read the background information given below. The SoCG Steering Committee: Mark de Berg (secretary), Joseph Mitchell, Günter Rote, Jack Snoeyink (chair), Monique Teillaud.
  • SIGCHI Conferences Report for Members May 2018

    SIGCHI Conferences Report for Members May 2018

    SIGCHI Conferences Report " ! " ! " May 22, 2018 SIGCHI (Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction) is led by the SIGCHI Executive committee and one of the appointed roles on this committee is the ACM SIGCHI Vice President for Conferences. This person is responsible for overseeing all aspects of SIGCHI-sponsored conferences and SIGCHI currently sponsors 24 conferences. www.si In addition to the annual CHI conference, the Specialised Conferences program of ACM SIGCHI has gradually evolved and has now become a significant part of the conference program that is offered to the HCI community at large. Across our conferences we have over 9,000 delegates attend our 24 conferences, with around 3000 of these attending CHI. This program includes all conferences involving ACM SIGCHI other than the annual CHI conferences. Throughout this report there are references to Specialised Conferences (e.g. Group to VRST) and CHI. Each conference has a steering committee and the chair of each steering committee serves on the ACM SIGCHI Council of Steering Committee Chairs. In addition we have an Adjunct Chair for CHI on the SIGCHI EC along with a SIGCHI Conference Board which works with the ACM SIGCHI VP for Conferences. The CHI Steering Committee oversees the activities of all CHI conference committee chairs from CHI 2018 onwards. It ensures that the objectives of the conference as established by the Steering Committee and EC are met. The CHI Steering Committee was created by SIGCHI Executive Committee in 2016. From CHI 2018 onwards, this committee serves as a focal point for communications between the conference committee, CHI attendees, CHI committees, CHI vendors, CHI liaison, SIGCHI and the SIGCHI Services Staff.
  • Sample-Sigplan.Pdf

    Sample-Sigplan.Pdf

    The Name of the Title is Hope Ben Trovato∗ Lars Thørväld Valerie Béranger G.K.M. Tobin∗ The Thørväld Group Inria Paris-Rocquencourt [email protected] Hekla, Iceland Rocquencourt, France [email protected] [email protected] Institute for Clarity in Documentation Dublin, Ohio, USA Aparna Patel Huifen Chan Charles Palmer Rajiv Gandhi University Tsinghua University Palmer Research Laboratories Doimukh, Arunachal Pradesh, India Haidian Qu, Beijing Shi, China San Antonio, Texas, USA [email protected] John Smith Julius P. Kumquat The Thørväld Group The Kumquat Consortium Hekla, Iceland New York, USA [email protected] [email protected] Figure 1. Seattle Mariners at Spring Training, 2010. Abstract CCS Concepts: • Computer systems organization ! Em- bedded systems; Redundancy; Robotics; • Networks ! A clear and well-documented LATEX document is presented as an article formatted for publication by ACM in a conference Network reliability. proceedings or journal publication. Based on the “acmart” Keywords: datasets, neural networks, gaze detection, text document class, this article presents and explains many of tagging the common variations, as well as many of the formatting elements an author may use in the preparation of the docu- ACM Reference Format: mentation of their work. Ben Trovato, G.K.M. Tobin, Lars Thørväld, Valerie Béranger, Aparna Patel, Huifen Chan, Charles Palmer, John Smith, and Julius P. Kumquat. ∗ Both authors contributed equally to this research. 2018. The Name of the Title is Hope. In Woodstock ’18: ACM Sym- posium on Neural Gaze Detection, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for ACM, New York, NY, USA,7 pages.
  • ACM SIGGRAPH Art Papers Programs 2019-2020 Everardo Reyes-García, Andrés Burbano

    ACM SIGGRAPH Art Papers Programs 2019-2020 Everardo Reyes-García, Andrés Burbano

    ACM SIGGRAPH Art Papers Programs 2019-2020 Everardo Reyes-García, Andrés Burbano To cite this version: Everardo Reyes-García, Andrés Burbano. ACM SIGGRAPH Art Papers Programs 2019-2020. Inter- national Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA 2019), Jun 2019, Gwangju, South Korea. hal-02167636 HAL Id: hal-02167636 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02167636 Submitted on 28 Jun 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ACM SIGGRAPH Art Papers Programs 2019-2020 Everardo Reyes, Andrés Burbano Université Paris 8, Universidad de los Andes Paris, France & Bogota, Colombia [email protected], [email protected] Abstract tific papers. To be included in the program, authors first This institutional presentation introduces the ACM submitted their papers as proposals that go through a rigor- SIGGRAPH Art Papers programs 2019 and 2020. The 2019 ous blind peer-review process. Accepted papers are pre- edition marks the 11th version of the program and our main sented in person by at least one of its authors at the goal is to highlight its principal novelties and projections on- SIGGRAPH venue and published in a special issue of Le- to 2020.
  • Dronepaint: Swarm Light Painting with DNN-Based Gesture Recognition

    Dronepaint: Swarm Light Painting with DNN-Based Gesture Recognition

    DronePaint: Swarm Light Painting with DNN-based Gesture Recognition Valerii Serpiva Ekaterina Karmanova Aleksey Fedoseev Skolkovo Institute of Science and Skolkovo Institute of Science and Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology Technology Technology Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Stepan Perminov Dzmitry Tsetserukou Skolkovo Institute of Science and Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology Technology Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia [email protected] [email protected] Figure 1: a) View of user screen. Drawing trajectory by hand and gesture recognition. b) Long exposure light painting of “Siggraph" logo by drone. c) Single swarm agent with the LED circle. ABSTRACT trajectory patterns. The proposed system can be potentially applied We propose a novel human-swarm interaction system, allowing the in complex environment exploration, spray painting using drones, user to directly control a swarm of drones in a complex environment and interactive drone shows, allowing users to create their own art through trajectory drawing with a hand gesture interface based on objects by drone swarms. the DNN-based gesture recognition. The developed CV-based system allows the user to control the CCS CONCEPTS swarm behavior without additional devices through human ges- • Human-centered computing ! Human-computer interac- tures and motions in real-time, providing convenient tools to change tion (HCI). the swarm’s shape and formation.
  • Elizabeth Baron Candidate for Director a As an ACM SIGGRAPH

    Elizabeth Baron Candidate for Director a As an ACM SIGGRAPH

    Elizabeth Baron Candidate for Director A As an ACM SIGGRAPH Pioneer, implementing computer graphics and interactive techniques, I relied on SIGGRAPH for inspiration on how to apply CG & IT in novel ways. I was taught how to bring art, engineering and science to life through expressive, realistic and accurate experiences. Believing it is important to give back to an organization that has given so much, I am honored to be considered to serve as a Director-at-Large. Over the past two years I have avidly participated in the ACM SIGGRAPH Executive Committee Strategy Team sessions. The team has made impressive, significant changes to increase our relevancy. I believe that to grow both the conference and the organization, we must bridge the gap between research and industry practitioners. ACM SIGGRAPH can influence the practical and innovative application of CG & IT methods, products, services and systems for industry. We can be involved in industry. As SFX become physics-based, the importance and accuracy of many types of simulations are as appropriate and useful for media and entertainment as well as for industry. We can learn from each other. ACM SIGGRAPH has inspired the CG & IT industry and practitioners around the world. I want to be a part of growing the outstanding legacy SIGGRAPH has created to enable everyone to tell their stories. BIOGRAPHY Elizabeth Baron is Vice President of Immersive Solutions for Silverdraft Supercomputing. She has been the driving force in the development and deployment of global, collaborative immersive paradigms for industrial design and engineering. Formerly, Elizabeth was a Technical Specialist in Immersive Realities at Ford Motor Company.
  • Surveymonkey Analyze

    Surveymonkey Analyze

    CHI2004 Conference Survey Q1 Was CHI2004 worth your time and money? Answered: 920 Skipped: 3 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 92.17% 848 No 7.83% 72 Total 920 1 / 25 CHI2004 Conference Survey Opening Plenary CHI Fringe Demonstrations Design Expo Development Consortium Doctoral Consortium Exhibits HCI Overviews Informal SIGs Other Special Sessions Panel Sessions Paper Sessions Posters Short Talks SIGs Student Competition Tutorials Workshops Closing Plenary 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 / 25 CHI2004 Conference Survey Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Didn't attend Total Weighted Average Opening Plenary 2.50% 6.74% 10.33% 39.89% 19.89% 20.65% 23 62 95 367 183 190 920 3.86 CHI Fringe 0.76% 2.07% 6.09% 14.78% 9.02% 67.28% 7 19 56 136 83 619 920 3.89 Demonstrations 0.43% 4.02% 12.72% 32.93% 7.50% 42.39% 4 37 117 303 69 390 920 3.75 Design Expo 0.76% 2.50% 8.37% 19.78% 7.83% 60.76% 7 23 77 182 72 559 920 3.80 Development Consortium 0.11% 0.22% 2.61% 3.48% 0.65% 92.93% 1 2 24 32 6 855 920 3.62 Doctoral Consortium 0.11% 0.11% 2.72% 1.63% 2.28% 93.15% 1 1 25 15 21 857 920 3.86 Exhibits 1.52% 6.20% 22.17% 39.78% 5.33% 25.00% 14 57 204 366 49 230 920 3.55 HCI Overviews 0.65% 3.26% 8.37% 20.22% 4.46% 63.04% 6 30 77 186 41 580 920 3.66 Informal SIGs 0.33% 2.07% 5.33% 10.76% 3.91% 77.61% 3 19 49 99 36 714 920 3.71 Other Special Sessions 0.54% 1.20% 5.00% 14.78% 6.52% 71.96% 5 11 46 136 60 662 920 3.91 Panel Sessions 3.04% 5.22% 12.83% 26.85% 8.70% 43.37% 28 48 118 247 80 399 920 3.58 Paper Sessions 1.63% 4.78%
  • Appendix C SURPLUS/LOSS: $291.34 SIGCSE 0.00 Sigada 100.00 SIGAPP 0.00 SIGPLAN 0.00

    Appendix C SURPLUS/LOSS: $291.34 SIGCSE 0.00 Sigada 100.00 SIGAPP 0.00 SIGPLAN 0.00

    Starts Ends Conference Actual SIGs and their % SIGACCESS 21-Oct-13 23-Oct-13 ASSETS '13: The 15th International ACM SIGACCESS ATTENDANCE: 155 SIGACCESS 100.00 Conference on Computers and Accessibility INCOME: $74,697.30 EXPENSE: $64,981.11 SURPLUS/LOSS: $9,716.19 SIGACT 12-Jan-14 14-Jan-14 ITCS'14 : Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science ATTENDANCE: 76 SIGACT 100.00 INCOME: $19,210.00 EXPENSE: $21,744.07 SURPLUS/LOSS: ($2,534.07) 22-Jul-13 24-Jul-13 PODC '13: ACM Symposium on Principles ATTENDANCE: 98 SIGOPS 50.00 of Distributed Computing INCOME: $62,310.50 SIGACT 50.00 EXPENSE: $56,139.24 SURPLUS/LOSS: $6,171.26 23-Jul-13 25-Jul-13 SPAA '13: 25th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in ATTENDANCE: 45 SIGACT 50.00 Algorithms and Architectures INCOME: $45,665.50 SIGARCH 50.00 EXPENSE: $39,586.18 SURPLUS/LOSS: $6,079.32 23-Jun-14 25-Jun-14 SPAA '14: 26th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in ATTENDANCE: 73 SIGARCH 50.00 Algorithms and Architectures INCOME: $36,107.35 SIGACT 50.00 EXPENSE: $22,536.04 SURPLUS/LOSS: $13,571.31 31-May-14 3-Jun-14 STOC '14: Symposium on Theory of Computing ATTENDANCE: SIGACT 100.00 INCOME: $0.00 EXPENSE: $0.00 SURPLUS/LOSS: $0.00 SIGAda 10-Nov-13 14-Nov-13 HILT 2013:High Integrity Language Technology ATTENDANCE: 60 SIGBED 0.00 ACM SIGAda Annual INCOME: $32,696.00 SIGCAS 0.00 EXPENSE: $32,404.66 SIGSOFT 0.00 Appendix C SURPLUS/LOSS: $291.34 SIGCSE 0.00 SIGAda 100.00 SIGAPP 0.00 SIGPLAN 0.00 SIGAI 11-Nov-13 15-Nov-13 ASE '13: ACM/IEEE International Conference on ATTENDANCE: 195 SIGAI 25.00 Automated Software Engineering
  • Annotated Table of Contents Links

    Annotated Table of Contents Links

    AI MATTERS, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2 5(2) 2019 AI Matters Annotated Table of Contents Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340476 Winning essay from the 2018 ACM SIGAI Student Welcome to AI Matters 5(2) Essay Contest Amy McGovern, co-editor & Iolanda Leite, co-editor Context-conscious fairness in using Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340471 machine learning to make decisions Welcome and summary Michelle Seng Ah Lee Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340477 AI Profiles: An Interview with Leslie Kaelbling Winning essay from the 2018 ACM SIGAI Student Essay Contest Marion Neumann Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340472 The Scales of (Algorithmic) Justice: Interview with Leslie Kaelbling Tradeoffs and Remedies Matthew Sun & Marissa Gerchick Events Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340478 Michael Rovatsos Winning essay from the 2018 ACM SIGAI Student Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340473 Essay Contest Upcoming AI events What Metrics Should We Use To Mea- AI Education Matters: Data Science sure Commercial AI? and Machine Learning with Magic: Cameron Hughes & Tracey Hughes The Gathering Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340479 Todd W. Neller Metrics for commercial AI Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340474 Data Science and Machine Learning with Magic: The Gathering Crosswords Adi Botea AI Policy Matters Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340480 Larry Medsker AI generated Crosswords Full article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3340470.3340475