A comprehensive guide for authors targeting top Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) conferences like CHI. It helps authors position their manuscripts, define required contribution types (e.g., system, dataset, empirical finding), and structure the paper to meet the rigorous standards of human-centered computing reviewers, focusing on user experience and design implication.
ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)
Conference positioning
ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) is a top computer-science conference venue for human-computer interaction, user experience, social computing, accessibility, design, and interactive systems. It rewards an HCI paper with a clear contribution type, rigorous study design, and relevance to human-centered computing. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
The author names CHI / ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems as the target venue.
A manuscript in human-computer interaction needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
Core fit: human-computer interaction, user experience, social computing, accessibility, design, and interactive systems.
Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
The paper should explain why the result matters to CHI's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
Reviewer lens: Read reviewers as human-centered computing researchers. Contribution type, study design, participant context, ethics, and design implication must line up.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: human-computer interaction, user experience, social computing, accessibility, design, and interactive systems.
Official anchor domain: chi2026.acm.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in HCI flagship
and the author can say why CHI reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient
deadline.
Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: acm-conference-on-computer- supported-cooperative-work-and-social-computing (CSCW), acm-conference-on-intelligent- user-interfaces (IUI). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community,
and the current official CFP from chi2026.acm.org.
CHI-specific routing detail
Prefer CHI when the paper makes a broad human-centered computing contribution: user behavior, interaction technique, accessibility, social computing, design implication, empirical study, or system impact with strong human evidence.
Use DIS when the design artifact, design method, critical design inquiry, or making/prototyping contribution is the center of the paper; CHI reviewers still expect the human-centered claim to generalize beyond the artifact.
Compare with CSCW for collaborative/social systems, UIST for interaction-technique engineering, IUI for intelligent interface behavior, and specialized accessibility/health/education venues when the domain community is the primary audience.
Method & evidence bar
Match the contribution type to the evidence: controlled study, field deployment, design inquiry, technical system, dataset, or theory.
Report participants, recruitment, analysis method, consent/ethics, and limitations with enough detail for HCI review.
For AI-infused interfaces, evaluate both model behavior and user experience; either alone is usually insufficient.
For CHI, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: an HCI paper with a clear contribution type, rigorous study design, and relevance to human-centered computing.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
Explain who benefits, what interaction changes, and what design knowledge the paper contributes.
Avoid treating users as a decoration for a technical system; the human evidence has to shape the claim.
Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
Confirm the review workflow and portal: the current ACM PCS/Precision Conference author guide and contribution-type policy.
Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at CHI, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
Related work includes the nearest current-cycle HCI flagship papers and explains the technical delta.
The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
Underpowered or poorly matched user study for an ambitious design claim.
Novel interface demo without contribution to interaction knowledge.
Ethics, accessibility, or community context handled superficially.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving CHI reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses CHI's bar, compare against acm-symposium-on-user-interface-software-and-technology / acm-conference-on-computer-supported-cooperative-work-and-social-computing / acm-conference-on-intelligent-user-interfaces / ieee-visualization-conference. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
