Conducting the evaluation of CHI 2004 on line was clearly highly successful. In the future we hope to do better and we welcome constructive suggestions for improvement in both content of the poll and the reporting. Before discussing the preliminary analysis I want to thank Marylin Saltzman for helping construct the survey and Panu Korhonen for posting, maintaining it, and providing the initial results. I have done the initial analysis any errors are my responsibility.

The results are provided with minimal comment. At a simple quantitative level the results speak for themselves. As we analyze the qualitative comments we will have much better insight with respect to why attendees responded the way the way that they did. Finally in a number of areas different subgroups are responding (e.g. different people attend different tracks) so generalizing the findings should be done carefully.

First to attendees the conference was worth the money

In addition, the vast majority of respondents would recommend the conference to others and an excellent percentage plan to attend the CHI 2005 in Portland

These results are highly encouraging. We all owe congratulations and thanks to the entire 2004 committee, reviewers, student volunteers, and of course to Manfred and Elizabeth

Plotted below are the ratings of conference content and services. Attendees report a number of reasons for attending CHI
The chart below shows the popularity of various tracks
The chart below shows overall conference rating and the ratings of the tracks
The chart below reports the preferred conference locations
The final chart shows the preferences for CD and printed proceedings.