CHI 2013 SIG Discussion
Discussion notes from the SIG Meeting on Visions and Visioning at CHI 2013
Ken: We had a 1 hour long session at UIST 2008; people could submit papers from the year 2030, not peer-reviewed; requirements: paper needs to be plausible, need to have interesting insights, they curated them. Made people think
Michel: alt.chi should be that session. Make deadline in parallel with papers.
Max: other formats: “future room”, exhibition
Wendy: Think about what’s the goal. Goal “Changing perspectives” is wonderful. Articulating to general public is different. Visions for funders is different again. Discussion within the community works quite nicely. But we are terrible at talking to funders. She urges us to think about what should be the outcomes of this venue.
David: Room exhibit is a good idea. Should have a virtual counterpart. A virtual space that has slides, videos etc.
Max Wilson: We already have a range of ways to contribute visions to CHI: panels, SIG, non peer-reviewed articles.
Participant: Disappointed by technology-centered visions. Our visions should be strongly on the human side. This is what we are lacking. Is there some way to encourage the creation of visions?
Participant: Create new session at CHI which is focused on a large problem / grand challenge. Discussion during that session.
Raimund: Micro-vision could/should be incorporated in papers. Add a section “How does the paper contribute to my lab vision?”
Participant: Try to involve audiences in developing visions and reflect on those visions. Systematically develop visions by developing several of them and contrast them.
Simon: Vision can provide some conceptual glue between all the papers of a community. Create gallery of visions at CHI.
Max: Backs the exhibition idea. It is difficult to convey visions. While there are formats for visions at CHI, we are not challenging them or pushing them. Format should be not too constrained to accommodate for the creative variety of visions.
Wendy: want to see long term visions