Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/chi2013/public_html/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/members/includes/functions.php on line 21
Selecting a Subcommittee | CHI 2013
  • facebook icon
  • twitter icon
  • google+ icon

Selecting a Subcommittee


CHI 2013 anticipates submission of over 1,800 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.


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 subcommittee). 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. 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 make technology more useful, usable, desirable and/or accessible by people. Successful papers will present results, practical approaches, tools, technologies and research methods that demonstrably advance our understanding and design capabilities for user experience, usability and/or accessibility. The focus is on usability and accessibility of widely used technologies. Applications targeting select user groups should be submitted to the Specific Applications subcommittee. 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.


Daniela Busse

Vicki Hanson

Antti Oulasvirta

Joanna McGrenere

Subcommittee: list of members

Example Papers and Notes:

Specific Application Areas

This subcommittee will focus on papers that extend 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 people, and people in developing countries. Examples of application areas include but are not limited to: education, health, home, sustainability, security, privacy and creativity. These contributions will be evaluated in part based on their impact on the specific application area and/or community that they address, in addition to their impact on HCI. Papers focused on increasing the accessibility of widely used technologies, as opposed to technologies designed for disabled people only, should be submitted to the Usability, Accessibility and User Experience subcommittee.


JP Hourcade

Andrew Ko

Wanda Pratt

Bill Thies

Subcommittee: list of members

Example Papers:

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.


Myriam Lewkowicz

Mark Ackerman

Subcommittee: list of members

Example Papers:


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.

This subcommittee is also the home for papers related to the design of computer games.


Jodi Forlizzi

Steve Harrison

Youn-Kyung Lim

Bilge Mutlu

Subcommittee: list of members

Example Papers:

Interaction Using Specific Capabilities or Modalities

This subcommittee will focus on advances in interaction that use capabilities, modalities, or technologies that have not yet been fully exploited in standard 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: multimodal user interfaces, tangible interfaces, speech I/O, auditory I/O, physiological computing, brain-computer interfaces, perception and vision-based systems, augmented reality, and visualisation.


Andy Wilson

Stephen Fairclough

Subcommittee: list of members

Example Papers:

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.


Bonnie John

Jacky ONeill

Victoria Belotti

David Kirk

Subcommittee: list of members

Example Papers:

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: new sensors and actuators, mobile devices, 3-D interaction, touch and multi-touch, graphical and tangible UI, tabletop and large display interaction.


Bjorn Hartman

Shahram Izadi

Tovi Grossman

Stephen Feiner

Subcommittee: list of members

Expanding Interaction through Technology, Systems & 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.


Hans Gellersen

Antonio Krueger

Subcommittee: list of members

Example Papers:

Subcommittee membership

Usability, Accessibility and User Experience subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Vicki Hanson University of Dundee chair
Joanna McGrenere UBC dep
Daniela Busse Samsung Research America chair
Antti Oulasvirta Max Planck Institute for Informatics dep
Andrea Bunt University of Manitoba AC
Andrew Sears UMBC AC
Anna Cox UCL AC
Effie Law University of Leicester AC
Jaime Teevan Microsoft Research AC
Lynne Baille Glasgow Caledonian University AC
Margaret Burnett Oregon State University AC
Matt Huenerfauth CUNY AC
Shari Trewin IBM Research AC
Shaun Kane UMBC AC
Jettie Hoonhout Phillips Research AC
John C Thomas IBM Research AC
Manfred Tscheligi Salzburg University AC
Mark Dunlop Strathclyde University AC
Richard Beckwith Intel AC
Gunnar Stevens University of Siegen AC
Gahgene Gweon KAIST AC
Luciano Gamberini University of Padova AC
Jan Gulliksen KTH Stockholm AC

Specific Application Areas subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Andrew Ko University of Washington chair
Bill Thies Microsoft Research India dep
Juan Pablo Hourcade University of Iowa chair
Wanda Pratt University of Washington dep
Amy Hurst University of Maryland, Baltimore County AC
Celine Latulipe University of Carolina, Charlotte AC
Chris Quintana University of Michigan AC
Elaine Huang University of Zurich AC
Geraldine Fitzpatrick University of Vienna AC
Glenda Revelle Sesame Workshop AC
Hilary Hutchinson Google Research AC
Jon Froehlich University of Maryland AC
Karrie Karahalios University of Illinois AC
Karyn Moffatt University of Toronto AC
Kasper Hornbæk University of Copenhagen AC
Katie Siek University of Colorado AC
Leah Findlater University of Maryland AC
Lena Mamykina Columbia University AC
Louise Barkhuus Stockholm University AC
Lyn Bartram Simon Fraser University AC
Tom Rodden University of Nottingham AC
Matt Jones Swansea University AC
Mikael Skov Aalborg University AC
Pedja Klasnja University of Michigan AC
Richard Banks Microsoft Research Cambridge AC
Tapan Parikh University of California, Berkeley AC
Andrea Grimes Parker Georgia Tech (soon to be Northeastern) AC
Alexander De Luca University of Munich (LMU) AC
Emmanuel Pietriga INRIA AC
Pierre Cubaud Cnam AC
Michael Massimi Microsoft AC
Gavin Doherty Trinity College Dublin AC
Jina Huh University of Washington AC

Interaction Beyond the Individual subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Myriam Lewkowicz Troyes University of Technology, France chair
Mark Ackerman University of Michigan, USA dep
Pernille Bjorn IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark AC
Antonella de angeli University of Trento, Italy AC
Darren Gergle Northwestern University, USA AC
Michael Muller IBM Research, USA AC
Scott Mainwaring Intel Labs, USA AC
Sean Munson University of Washington, USA AC
Volkmar Pipek University of Siegen, Germany AC
Sadat Shami IBM Research, USA AC
Hilda Tellioglu Vienna University of Technology, Austria AC
Janet Vertesi Princeton University, USA AC
Volker Wulf University of Siegen, Germany AC
Ed Chi Google, USA AC
Jamie Teevan Microsoft AC
Marilyn McGee-Lennon University of Glasgow AC
Susan Fussell Cornell University AC
Xiaomu Zhou Rutgers University AC
Sarita Yardi Schoenebeck University of Michigan AC
Alexander Boden University of Siegen AC
Michal Jacovi IBM AC

Design subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Jodi Forlizzi Carnegie Mellon University chair
Bilge Mutlu University Wisconsin-Madison dep
Steve Harrison Virginia Tech chair
Youn-Kyung Lim KAIST dep
Chris LeDantec Georgia Tech AC
Eric Paulos Carnegie Mellon University (soon UC Berkeley) AC
Evan Karapanos Carnegie Mellon University Madeira AC
Floyd Mueller RMIT University AC
Giulio Jacucci Aalto University AC
Jennifer Rode Drexel University AC
Lucian Leahu Cornell University AC
Shaowen Bardzell Indiana University AC
Steven Dow Carnegie Mellon University AC
Valentina Nisi Carnegie Mellon University Madeira AC
Elizabeth Gerber Northwestern University AC
Joonhwan Lee Seoul National University AC
Mark Blythe Northhumbria University AC
Vanessa Evers University of Twente AC
Daniela Rosner UC Berkeley (soon U Washington) AC
Haakon Faste Carnegie Mellon University AC
Ann Light Sheffield Hallam University AC
Darren Edge Microsoft Research Asia AC
Elisa Giaccardi TU Delft AC
Eva Hornecker University of Strathclyde, UK AC
Jeff Bardzell Indiana University, Bloomington AC
Joep Frens TU Eindhoven AC
John Zimmerman Carnegie Mellon University AC
Katherine Isbster Buffalo AC
Kia Hook Stockholm University AC
Kim Halskov Aarhus University AC
Lian Loke The University of Sydney AC
Margot Brereton Queensland University AC
Mikael Wiberg Umeå University, Sweden AC
Peter Wright Newcastle AC
Pieter Jan Stappers TU Delft AC
Ian Oakley CMU Madeira AC
Stephan Wensveen University of Southern Denmark AC
Deborah Tatar Virginia Tech AC

Interaction Using Specific Capabilities or Modalities subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Andy Wilson Microsoft Research chair
Stephen Fairclough  Liverpool John Moores University dep
Karon Maclean University of Bristish Columbia AC
Mira Dontcheva Adobe AC
Scott Hudson Carnegie Mellon University AC
Mark BIllinghurst University of Canterbury AC
Clifton Forlines Draper labs AC
Erin Solovey Massachusetts Institute of Technology AC
Shengdong Zhao National University of Singapore AC
Andreas Butz University of Munich AC
Petra Isenberg INRIA AC
Anton Nijholt TU Twente AC
Andrew Duchowski Clemson University AC
Regan Mandryk University of Saskatchewan AC
Timothy Bickmore Northeastern University AC
Steve Drucker Microsoft AC
Evan Suma University of Southern California AC
David McGookin University of Glasgow AC
Matthew Turk University of California, Santa Barbara AC
Pierre Dragicevic INRIA AC
Aaron Quigley The University of St Andrews AC

Understanding People subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Bonnie E. John IBM chair
Victoria Bellotti PARC dep
Jacki O’Neill Xerox chair
David Kirk University of Newcastle dep
Duncam Brumby University College London AC
Leonghwee Teo DSO, Singapore AC
Gloria Mark University of California, Irvine AC
Yunan Chen University of California, Irvine AC
Sunny Consolvo Google AC
Sameer Patil Indiana University AC
Ryen White Microsoft AC
Wai Tat Fu University of Illinois AC
Stephen Payne University of Bath AC
Gary Hsieh Michigan State University AC
Anthony Jameson German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence AC
Marina Jirotka Oxford University AC
Paul Van Schaik Teeside University AC
Carla Simone Milano Bicocca University AC
Xianghua (Sharon) Ding Fudan University AC
Ann Blandford  UCL AC
Barry Brown  Mobile Life Center AC
Claire O’Malley  University of Nottingham AC
Danae Stanton Fraser  University of Bath AC
David Martin  Xerox AC
David Randall  Manchester University AC
Erika Poole  Penn State AC
Judd Antin  Faceboook AC
Kenton O’Hara  Microsoft Research AC
Marianna Obrist  Newcastle University AC
Mark Perry  Brunell University AC
Mark Rouncefield  Lancaster University AC
Paul Luff  Kings College London AC
Prof. Xiangshi Ren  Kochi University of Technology AC
Honglu Du PARC AC
Paul Marshall UCL AC
Serge Engelman Guanotronic AC
Sian Lindley  Microsoft Research AC
Luigina Ciolfi University of Limerick AC

Interaction Techniques & Devices subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Shahram Izadi Microsoft Research, Cambridge chair
Steven Feiner Columbia University dep
Björn Hartmann University of California, Berkeley chair
Tovi Grossman Autodesk Research dep
Sriram Subramanian Bristol University AC
Alex Olwal MIT Media Lab AC
Stéphane Huot INRIA AC
Jan Borchers Aachen AC
Dan Wigdor University of Toronto AC
Per Ola Kristensson University of St. Andrews AC
Yang Li Google AC
Koji Yatani Microsoft AC
mc schraefel University of Southampton AC
Chris Harrison Carnegie Mellon University AC
Andruid Kerne Texas A&M AC
Otmar Hilliges Microsoft Research AC
Géry Casiez University of Lille AC
Tomer Moscovich Lab126 AC
Pourang Irani University of Manitoba AC
Nick Chen University of Maryland AC
Caroline Appert Université Paris-Sud AC
Nic Villar Microsoft Research AC
Edward Lank University of Waterloo AC
Lennart Nacke University of Ontario Institute of Technology AC

Technology, Systems & Tools subcommittee

Name Affiliation Position
Hans Gellersen Lancaster University chair
Antonio Krueger DFKI dep
Andreas Bulling Cambridge University AC
Anne Roudaut Bristol University AC
Jeff Bigham Rochester University AC
Judy Kay Sydney University AC
Krzysztof Gajos Harvard University AC
Tessa Lau IBM AC
Elisabeth Andre Augsburg University AC
Xiang Cao Microsoft Research Asia AC
Nadir Weibel University of California, San Diego AC
Albrecht Schmidt University of Stuttgart AC
James Fogarty University of Washington AC