Personal tools
You are here: Home 2003 Vol.35 No.4, September/October 2003 SIGCHI EEC Meeting Minutes for September 2003
Document Actions

SIGCHI EEC Meeting Minutes for September 2003

Julie Jacko reports the minutes from the SIGCHI EEC Meeting of 17 September 2003.

Present: Mary Czerwinski (Mary), Julie Jacko (Julie), Rob Jacob (Rob), Erica Johnson (Erica), Joseph Konstan (Joseph), Ian McClelland (Ian), Alan Wexelblat (Alan), Andrew Sears (Andrew), Kevin Schofield (Kevin), Dennis Wixon (Dennis), Raquel Prates (Raquel).


1. Introductions and Announcements

Although everyone voted by email to approve the August minutes, in accordance with bi-laws have to formally approve. Unanimous vote to approve August minutes.

2. HCI Bibliography On-line (HCIBib)

Joseph spoke with Ben Shneiderman about status of HCIBib, who viewed it a valuable historical capture for the field; but also emphasized the need to maintain HCIBib on a regular basis. A group discussion followed concerning the differences between Digital Library (DL) and HCIBib.
One question that arose, and Erica will follow up on is whether the HCIBib is linked to search engines? Julie states it is a valuable resource for students and professionals. Perhaps we need to allocate resources to support it. There is sufficient content (like books) that it details more than the DL. Joseph summarized group consensus: Yes, HCIBib seems like it’s a valuable resource. Is there a feeling that we could get a small group of people to discuss with Gary Perlman future directions, and potential for links between it and the DL? Julie voiced interest in assisting this effort, and Andrew stated that it seems relevant to the educational side of things.

Action: Julie, Alan, Andrew, and Marilyn will look at HCIBib, where it is and what should be done with it, and report back in 3 months.

3. Putting Tutorials Notes online

Andrew is looking into putting tutorial notes online.
Challenges/concerns:
1) What is the type of access/control that can be implemented?
2) Is what is proposed feasible (technically speaking) with the resources available?
3) Impact on future registration
4) Access Control – security to limit only to those with access rights.
5) Rob raised issue that some consultants may not want to publish their material, and Andrew responded that they would first get permission before publishing
6) Ian stated that it may discourage people from submitting tutorials
7) Alan offered that MIT emphasizes in their online course materials that the value is not in the materials but that the value lies in sitting through the actual courses.
8) Julie stated that when she and Andrew were tutorial chairs in 1998 that they had a chance to review all of the tutorial notes and the value is clearly not in the printed material alone.
9) Raquel raised concern about the tutorial notes being distributed to Local SIG members that would not otherwise have national memberships. The group discussed the necessity of coordinating with Local SIG Chairs.
Alan is opposed to access control because (1) Value of openness (2) The difficulties of coordinating access of local chapters and national would be too much of an undertaking. Thus, tutorial notes should be made available to those inside and outside SIG CHI

Joseph added if we can distinguish between inside and outside, does it make sense that we could attach these as a membership benefit, in both SIGCHI and local chapters?
Kevin raised three issues:
1. We are a membership organization and we do things and provide things to members to encourage them to join.
2. Part of our goal as part of ACM is to disseminate knowledge
3. Advertising for CHI conference: Because the CHI conference is not limited to SIGCHI members, this could be an interesting advertising piece.
Ian reiterated that reading the tutorial notes does not give all the insight of the tutorials, but it can encourage people to attend the conference and tutorials. Julie stated that this is a big potential member benefit, if people realize they can get this benefit only if they are members. As an organization, we need to have benefits that serve as motivation to bring in new people. Mary voiced that it was not worth the hassle of limited access. Dennis stated that there are benefits of advertising, but people may download the notes and think they have gained the full benefit of the tutorial. If it is an advertising medium, then we need to clearly provide information to direct people as to where to become members or attend the conference. Kevin raised the possibility of instituting a 90-day waiting period on access to the tutorial notes.

Rob raised the issued that the material that goes into tutorial notes is not a publishable medium. Raquel pointed out that receiving tutorial notes are perceived as one of the biggest benefits of being a Local SIG. If not, then what is SIGCHI giving back to Local SIGS? If we make it available to everyone, then there is no benefit to it. As a benefit of membership, it will draw people into looking further into SIGCHI membership. Joseph observed that if we really think we’re going to attract people to a tutorial, we want to put these up in time for people to register for the conference. For example, “Take a look at some of these notes to determine if you want to sign up for the tutorial” While, sympathetic to educating the world, the ACM can support the member and non-members of SIGCHI.

Another suggestion is that a sample or preview of the tutorial could be offered for free and the membership benefit is that you can download a full copy of the tutorial notes. Local chapter members would be encouraged to contact chapter leader to get a copy, and non-members will be directed to sign up. Alan observed that there is no infrastructure or set-up for the ACM technology Tool Box except the Digital Library (DL) that lets you select based on membership. Yet, Erica raised that SIGGRAPH makes its proceedings available free to members through the DL.

Dennis mentioned that a possible compromise approach could be that a certain time before the conference to release the notes to encourage registration. A certain time later we can make available only to those who attended tutorial, and then later on released to all.

To Summarize:
1.Nobody thinks it is a bad idea (making tutorial notes more available.)
2. There is concern that to do this in a thoughtful way we must preserve the marketing side of issue.

Action: Julie, Dennis, and Kevin will work with Andrew (as lead) to determine the contents of the final proposal and then will work with Alan on technical detail and logistics. The timetable for this is constrained by the fact that we would want to put the tutorial notes up by January if we want this to occur for CHI 2004; So, make a decision by November, and decide if we will coordinate with chairs of 2004 or wait until 2005.

Raquel wanted to confirmation that Local SIGS will have access.

Alan added: We need to deal with issues of international copyright that are sometimes non-trivial. The permissions form as it currently stands specifically states that you give permission for this publication for this particular event. If you extend this permission to distribute to the Local SIGS, you need to be explicit in the agreement with authors and tutorial chairs. This creates a second channel of distribution, so the license has to be changed. Julie responded that the committee would work on licensing as part of the overall proposal.

Report on VC conferences (Dennis)

Schedule update on CHI2004 (Dennis)

Dennis had teleconferences with the 2004 conference chairs on areas where they felt they could use help and where the Executive Committee could offer help. Publicity and related issues are the most pressing issue for them.

Summary of 2004 publicity

Concern about lightness of the publicity and sponsorship plans. Contracts expected to be in place next week. The overall plan is to use postcards from the ACM office to distribute to volunteers to give to attendants at upcoming events. Will send out today and ask for replies by the end of the week to secure distribution channels. The chairs are looking into printing a poster to be taken to conferences. With one side of general conference information and the opposite side highlighting the program. If the publicity contractors are not in place by next week the 2004 chairs will send the conference a distribution list to the ACM office to send announcements. Joseph stated that it sounds like we have those plans in place. He questioned if they are planning any particular publicity surrounding the late submissions (poster, short talks, etc.). From experience, in Europe those are significant ways in getting people to attend. Dennis will bring it up with the next meeting with the chairs.

Finances

Erica sated that expenses are in line with what’s been budgeted.
Registration
Dennis: A registration vendor has not been selected. The deadline for selection is by next week. Most other contracts are in place, but a few need to be negotiated.
Erica: We’re in the process of finalizing things, and everyone is in the process of getting everything finalized in the next two weeks.
Papers Committee
Dennis stated that on the papers committee, the chairs feel there is not sufficient representation outside of U.S. They plan to approach Ian to serve as paper chair. Will be asking Panu and Gerrit also. They are having regular bi-weekly meetings. Dennis will send out before the end of the week a finalized list of all Conference Management Committee (CMC) members, and portfolio areas that each one may be assigned responsible for.

General Updates

Operations (Alan)

SIGCHI EC has an e-mail alias that is basically dead. A SIGCHI-EEC e-mail alias will come into being at that point this is still being arranged.

Chapters (Raquel)

Feedback on ‘Tutorial to Go’ program
(Raquel) sent message to the chapters asking for feedback. She is still waiting for feedback from many but has received 8 replies thus far. The chapters outside the U.S. think it’s a great idea but can’t afford it, so it is reasonable to terminate. Those in the U.S. say they haven’t used the program because of the cost, use local tutorials instead. Student chapters said definitely they couldn’t afford it. Just two chapters have gone through with the program; 1) Feedback from the Puget Sound chapter indicated that what they used (and liked) the most was having available the list of instructors. Raquel suggested that the financial aspects are so hard for Chapters to utilize the program, that maybe they could just maintain the list of the best tutorials so people can set up their own and can initiate contact. The other chapter that used the program thought it was a good program in general.

Summary: Most chapters don’t think it is that useful, and that it’s too expensive (regardless of country) and too risky (financially). One commented that they have their own tutorial system in place. Others think it is a good idea in theory but too expensive. The list would be useful to offer to chapters if they want to independently contact the instructors. That would be a good midway solution.

Rob suggested that identifying the top tutorials from a conference proves difficult. One approach: A tutorial that has been offered more than once in theory has had good reviews. But this would exclude first year tutorials. Joseph added that that seems reasonable, but need someone to coordinate this effort. Alan replied that the issue of the tutorial-to-go is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and itself creates problems. Raquel replied that she doesn’t think it’s entirely true that a problem doesn’t exist. Local chapters do seek speakers.

Joseph suggested:
1) Remind chapters that they are entitled to participate in the ACM lecture programs (all chapters).
2) Get more HCI people to apply for lecture programs.

Action: Raquel should present this idea to the chapters to see if a subset of them would want to form a committee to create a tutorial database for use. Leave it to be their initiative. If there is no initiative, then the concept can be dropped. Raquel asked Alan not to remove the Tutorials-to-go page from the web site yet. Alan confirmed that he would not take down any content until given notice.

4. Short Items

Publications (Joseph)
There is an Interactions review survey that has been distributed. The committee is working to assess interactions with respect to membership and needs.

-Award Committees
Lifetime Achievement
Joseph will identify when the formal turnover occurs so that members can make election.
Kevin is not sure if a formal document exists.
Joseph stated that if there is no formal process. If the number is large enough it will solve itself.
The chair for lifetime Achievement is Jim Foley.

Distinguished service award.
This falls under a separate committee; Send names of people who have not been recognized in the past, email Joseph with ideas.

ACM SIG Governing Board (SGB) meeting
SGB EC Approved by-laws, the issue is now forwarded on to ACM Executive Committee

Present: Mary Czerwinski (Mary), Julie Jacko (Julie), Rob Jacob (Rob), Erica Johnson (Erica), Joseph Konstan (Joseph), Ian McClelland (Ian), Alan Wexelblat (Alan), Andrew Sears (Andrew), Kevin Schofield (Kevin), Dennis Wixon (Dennis), Raquel Prates (Raquel).

1. Introductions and Announcements>

Although everyone voted by email to approve the August minutes, in accordance with bi-laws have to formally approve. Unanimous vote to approve August minutes.

2. HCI Bibliography On-line (HCIBib)

Joseph spoke with Ben Shneiderman about status of HCIBib, who viewed it a valuable historical capture for the field; but also emphasized the need to maintain HCIBib on a regular basis. A group discussion followed concerning the differences between Digital Library (DL) and HCIBib.
One question that arose, and Erica will follow up on is whether the HCIBib is linked to search engines? Julie states it is a valuable resource for students and professionals. Perhaps we need to allocate resources to support it. There is sufficient content (like books) that it details more than the DL. Joseph summarized group consensus: Yes, HCIBib seems like it’s a valuable resource. Is there a feeling that we could get a small group of people to discuss with Gary Perlman future directions, and potential for links between it and the DL? Julie voiced interest in assisting this effort, and Andrew stated that it seems relevant to the educational side of things.

Action: Julie, Alan, Andrew, and Marilyn will look at HCIBib, where it is and what should be done with it, and report back in 3 months.

3. Putting Tutorials Notes online

Andrew is looking into putting tutorial notes online.
Challenges/concerns:
1) What is the type of access/control that can be implemented?
2) Is what is proposed feasible (technically speaking) with the resources available?
3) Impact on future registration
4) Access Control – security to limit only to those with access rights.
5) Rob raised issue that some consultants may not want to publish their material, and Andrew responded that they would first get permission before publishing
6) Ian stated that it may discourage people from submitting tutorials
7) Alan offered that MIT emphasizes in their online course materials that the value is not in the materials but that the value lies in sitting through the actual courses.
8) Julie stated that when she and Andrew were tutorial chairs in 1998 that they had a chance to review all of the tutorial notes and the value is clearly not in the printed material alone.
9) Raquel raised concern about the tutorial notes being distributed to Local SIG members that would not otherwise have national memberships. The group discussed the necessity of coordinating with Local SIG Chairs.
Alan is opposed to access control because (1) Value of openness (2) The difficulties of coordinating access of local chapters and national would be too much of an undertaking. Thus, tutorial notes should be made available to those inside and outside SIG CHI

Joseph added if we can distinguish between inside and outside, does it make sense that we could attach these as a membership benefit, in both SIGCHI and local chapters?
Kevin raised three issues:
1. We are a membership organization and we do things and provide things to members to encourage them to join.
2. Part of our goal as part of ACM is to disseminate knowledge
3. Advertising for CHI conference: Because the CHI conference is not limited to SIGCHI members, this could be an interesting advertising piece.
Ian reiterated that reading the tutorial notes does not give all the insight of the tutorials, but it can encourage people to attend the conference and tutorials. Julie stated that this is a big potential member benefit, if people realize they can get this benefit only if they are members. As an organization, we need to have benefits that serve as motivation to bring in new people. Mary voiced that it was not worth the hassle of limited access. Dennis stated that there are benefits of advertising, but people may download the notes and think they have gained the full benefit of the tutorial. If it is an advertising medium, then we need to clearly provide information to direct people as to where to become members or attend the conference. Kevin raised the possibility of instituting a 90-day waiting period on access to the tutorial notes.

Rob raised the issued that the material that goes into tutorial notes is not a publishable medium. Raquel pointed out that receiving tutorial notes are perceived as one of the biggest benefits of being a Local SIG. If not, then what is SIGCHI giving back to Local SIGS? If we make it available to everyone, then there is no benefit to it. As a benefit of membership, it will draw people into looking further into SIGCHI membership. Joseph observed that if we really think we’re going to attract people to a tutorial, we want to put these up in time for people to register for the conference. For example, “Take a look at some of these notes to determine if you want to sign up for the tutorial” While, sympathetic to educating the world, the ACM can support the member and non-members of SIGCHI.

Another suggestion is that a sample or preview of the tutorial could be offered for free and the membership benefit is that you can download a full copy of the tutorial notes. Local chapter members would be encouraged to contact chapter leader to get a copy, and non-members will be directed to sign up. Alan observed that there is no infrastructure or set-up for the ACM technology Tool Box except the Digital Library (DL) that lets you select based on membership. Yet, Erica raised that SIGGRAPH makes its proceedings available free to members through the DL.

Dennis mentioned that a possible compromise approach could be that a certain time before the conference to release the notes to encourage registration. A certain time later we can make available only to those who attended tutorial, and then later on released to all.

To Summarize:
1.Nobody thinks it is a bad idea (making tutorial notes more available.)
2. There is concern that to do this in a thoughtful way we must preserve the marketing side of issue.

Action: Julie, Dennis, and Kevin will work with Andrew (as lead) to determine the contents of the final proposal and then will work with Alan on technical detail and logistics. The timetable for this is constrained by the fact that we would want to put the tutorial notes up by January if we want this to occur for CHI 2004; So, make a decision by November, and decide if we will coordinate with chairs of 2004 or wait until 2005.

Raquel wanted to confirmation that Local SIGS will have access.

Alan added: We need to deal with issues of international copyright that are sometimes non-trivial. The permissions form as it currently stands specifically states that you give permission for this publication for this particular event. If you extend this permission to distribute to the Local SIGS, you need to be explicit in the agreement with authors and tutorial chairs. This creates a second channel of distribution, so the license has to be changed. Julie responded that the committee would work on licensing as part of the overall proposal.

Report on VC conferences (Dennis)

Schedule update on CHI2004 (Dennis)

Dennis had teleconferences with the 2004 conference chairs on areas where they felt they could use help and where the Executive Committee could offer help. Publicity and related issues are the most pressing issue for them.

Summary of 2004 publicity

Concern about lightness of the publicity and sponsorship plans. Contracts expected to be in place next week. The overall plan is to use postcards from the ACM office to distribute to volunteers to give to attendants at upcoming events. Will send out today and ask for replies by the end of the week to secure distribution channels. The chairs are looking into printing a poster to be taken to conferences. With one side of general conference information and the opposite side highlighting the program. If the publicity contractors are not in place by next week the 2004 chairs will send the conference a distribution list to the ACM office to send announcements. Joseph stated that it sounds like we have those plans in place. He questioned if they are planning any particular publicity surrounding the late submissions (poster, short talks, etc.). From experience, in Europe those are significant ways in getting people to attend. Dennis will bring it up with the next meeting with the chairs.

Finances

Erica sated that expenses are in line with what’s been budgeted.
Registration
Dennis: A registration vendor has not been selected. The deadline for selection is by next week. Most other contracts are in place, but a few need to be negotiated.
Erica: We’re in the process of finalizing things, and everyone is in the process of getting everything finalized in the next two weeks.
Papers Committee
Dennis stated that on the papers committee, the chairs feel there is not sufficient representation outside of U.S. They plan to approach Ian to serve as paper chair. Will be asking Panu and Gerrit also. They are having regular bi-weekly meetings. Dennis will send out before the end of the week a finalized list of all Conference Management Committee (CMC) members, and portfolio areas that each one may be assigned responsible for.

General Updates

Operations (Alan)

SIGCHI EC has an e-mail alias that is basically dead. A SIGCHI-EEC e-mail alias will come into being at that point this is still being arranged.

Chapters (Raquel)

Feedback on ‘Tutorial to Go’ program
(Raquel) sent message to the chapters asking for feedback. She is still waiting for feedback from many but has received 8 replies thus far. The chapters outside the U.S. think it’s a great idea but can’t afford it, so it is reasonable to terminate. Those in the U.S. say they haven’t used the program because of the cost, use local tutorials instead. Student chapters said definitely they couldn’t afford it. Just two chapters have gone through with the program; 1) Feedback from the Puget Sound chapter indicated that what they used (and liked) the most was having available the list of instructors. Raquel suggested that the financial aspects are so hard for Chapters to utilize the program, that maybe they could just maintain the list of the best tutorials so people can set up their own and can initiate contact. The other chapter that used the program thought it was a good program in general.

Summary: Most chapters don’t think it is that useful, and that it’s too expensive (regardless of country) and too risky (financially). One commented that they have their own tutorial system in place. Others think it is a good idea in theory but too expensive. The list would be useful to offer to chapters if they want to independently contact the instructors. That would be a good midway solution.

Rob suggested that identifying the top tutorials from a conference proves difficult. One approach: A tutorial that has been offered more than once in theory has had good reviews. But this would exclude first year tutorials. Joseph added that that seems reasonable, but need someone to coordinate this effort. Alan replied that the issue of the tutorial-to-go is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and itself creates problems. Raquel replied that she doesn’t think it’s entirely true that a problem doesn’t exist. Local chapters do seek speakers.

Joseph suggested:
1) Remind chapters that they are entitled to participate in the ACM lecture programs (all chapters).
2) Get more HCI people to apply for lecture programs.

Action: Raquel should present this idea to the chapters to see if a subset of them would want to form a committee to create a tutorial database for use. Leave it to be their initiative. If there is no initiative, then the concept can be dropped. Raquel asked Alan not to remove the Tutorials-to-go page from the web site yet. Alan confirmed that he would not take down any content until given notice.

4. Short Items

Publications (Joseph)
There is an Interactions review survey that has been distributed. The committee is working to assess interactions with respect to membership and needs.

-Award Committees
Lifetime Achievement
Joseph will identify when the formal turnover occurs so that members can make election.
Kevin is not sure if a formal document exists.
Joseph stated that if there is no formal process. If the number is large enough it will solve itself.
The chair for lifetime Achievement is Jim Foley.

Distinguished service award.
This falls under a separate committee; Send names of people who have not been recognized in the past, email Joseph with ideas.

ACM SIG Governing Board (SGB) meeting
SGB EC Approved by-laws, the issue is now forwarded on to ACM Executive Committee
 

Powered by Plone CMS, the Open Source Content Management System

This site conforms to the following standards: