Aditional Materials

The Review Form

Dear CHI97 Technical Notes Reviewer: Please TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THE PAPERS you have been sent to review as soon as possible. WE NEED TO HEAR ABOUT ANY CONFLICTS YOU HAVE regarding reviewing a particular paper as soon as possible. If after reading the paper you feel that you have a conflict in reviewing it, please e-mail or phone Rachel Bellamy immediately (rachel@apple.com, (408) 974-6049.

Technical notes are brief descriptions of:

They are short (2 page) papers and as such should NOT contain detailed methodology, although this should be available in references. Relevant background information should be included as citations but full literature reviews are not expected. The material presented must be of archival quality and must be adequately explained in the two page format. Review criteria are: originality and innovativeness, significance, quality of the argument, quality of the mechanics - writing, figures, etc.

Below you will find the review form to use in preparing your review. Please cut below the dotted lines and submit one review form for each review you are asked to do. We have included <> for each rating and comment that you are asked to provide. Please type your input between the <> symbols.

Remember that the reviews serve two purposes: to help the committee make a decision about the CHI97 technical program and to help authors produce better papers in the future. We encourage you to make helpful suggestions to the authors about ways to improve their papers and their future work. Try to make your comments constructive, e.g. "this paper should have included references to the following papers" rather than destructive, e.g. " I wouldn't accept this paper from an undergraduate student, the authors do not seem to have read any of the literature in this field". Please make these suggestions keeping in mind the review criteria and the limitations of length we have imposed.

Please remember that reviews must be e-mailed to both Rachel and to the designated associate chair no later than __________.

Thank you for your time and efforts. Jean Scholtz and Rachel Bellamy 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++ CHI97 Technical Notes Review Form ++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++INCLUDE AT THE TOP OF EACH REVIEW ++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SUBMISSION NUMBER <>
SUBMISSION TITLE  <>


REVIEWER NUMBER <>

1.  Briefly SUMMARIZE the main points of the submission:
<>


DETAILED RATINGS:
(please include comments to support the decision)

2.   Originality and Innovativeness of work?
2.1. Rating <>
(1 = highly original and innovative; 5 = no or minimal original content)
2.2. Comments <>




3. IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM underlying this paper (e.g., significance,
   relevance to CHI)
3.1. Rating <>
(1 = very important;  5 = not important to CHI community)
3.2. Comments <>



4. QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENT in this paper (e.g. completeness, focus,
   supporting rationale, connections to related work).
4.1. Rating <>
(1 = excellent quality; 5 = dubious quality)
4.2. Comments <>



5. QUALITY OF THE MECHANICS of this paper (e.g., writing clarity, 
   level of    detail, figures).
5.1 Rating <>
(1 = clear writing, easy to understand, good figures 5 = unclear writing,
impossible to follow, figures are difficult to understand)
5.2. Comments <>


6. Using the scale
        1 = Definitely accept
        2 = Probably accept
        3 = Could go either way
        4 = Probably reject
        5 = Definitely reject
   provide a numerical rating of the paper's ACCEPTABILITY
<>

7. SUMMARIZE your ASSESSMENT of the paper, pointing out
   which aspects described above you weighted most heavily
   in your rating in question 7?
<>

8. Using the scale
        1 = Extremely confident, I consider myself an expert
        2 = Pretty confident, I know this area well
        3 = Moderately confident, I know as much as most
        4 = Rather unconfident, but I know a bit
        5 = Very unconfident, really just a guess

   rate your EXPERTISE in the area addressed by the paper.
<>

9. COMMENTS for the author(s)
Provide any other comments you believe would be useful to the author
(including pointers to missing relevant work)
<>


-------------------------------------------------------------
10. Use this space to provide comments that you feel are
    relevant to the review process but that you do NOT want
    FORWARDED to the author(s)
<>


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++ CHI97 Technical Notes Review Form +++++++++++++
+++++++++++++ INCLUDE AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH FORM ++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++