This review form will be processed automatically. This means that it is very important to LEAVE THE FORM AS-IS EXCEPT WHERE WE ASK YOU TO ENTER INFORMATION. Information-entry points are marked with "::". It is also important that you email us an ASCII version of your filled-in forms, so that they won't have funny control characters in them and so on. Probably the easiest thing to do is to save this template as a file and edit a copy of it for each review, then bring it in as part of a mail message when you're ready to send the review back. If you use your mail-reply function to do this, don't worry if special characters (e.g., ">") are inserted at the beginning of lines in the template; we can strip these out. You may combine reviews into a single mail message if you like, just make sure that EACH review begins with the form-begin banner and ends with the form-end banner. If you do choose to work on the form within a word processor (e.g., MS Word), please remember to save it TEXT-ONLY before emailing it back to us. If you believe that creating an ASCII version will be a problem for you, please immediately contact us at chi96-papers@parc.xerox.com. NOTE: Question 2 asks you to evaluate the paper in terms of the criteria specified for each of the six paper categories described in the official call for participation. To summarize, -- EMPIRICAL: judged primarily according to the appropriateness and rationale for the methods of data collection analysis, and significance of conclusions -- EXPERIENCE: judged primarily according to usefulness to practitioners of lessons learned, i.e., are they able to learn something new from it and can they apply it -- SYSTEMS: judged primarily according to the originality (i.e., novelty and interest value) of the design idea and soundness of rationale behind it. -- THEORY: judged primarily according to the originality (i.e., novelty and interest value) and soundness of the theoretical arguments, and relevance to research or practice -- METHODOLOGY: judged primarily according to the originality (i.e., novelty and interest value) and soundness of the proposed method, and likely usefulness to intended audience. -- OPINION: judged primarily on the impact and quality of the argument, including the data (research or practice) used to support the argument, and on the likelihood of this argument to have a stimulating effect on the CHI community. Email your completed reviews NO LATER THAN 5PM PDT OCTOBER 11 to: chi96-papers@parc.xerox.com. THE FORM BEGINS WITH THE NEXT LINE: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++ CHI96 Paper Review Form-Begin Banner +++++++++++ +++++++++++++ INCLUDE AT THE TOP OF EACH REVIEW +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER :: PAPER TITLE :: AUTHOR(S) :: REVIEWER NUMBER :: 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper. :: 2. What TYPE OF SUBMISSION is appropriate for this paper (see bottom of Cover Sheet Two for the authors' selection)? If your assessment of type differs from the Authors, please explain why you made your selection. In the next two questions, use the criteria specific to this Type of Submission (see above) to assess the paper. :: 3. Describe the IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM, addressing the following concerns: Is it new and significant? Is it a useful and relevant problem? Do they sufficiently motivate the problem? Did you learn anything? Does the issue apply to CHI? :: 4. Describe the QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENT, addressing the following: Does the analysis use appropriate methodology? Is the argument well-structured? Do they provide sufficient data and/or well-supported arguments? Do they cite relevant work? Is the paper appropriately focused? Does the analysis cover all the important issues at the appropriate level of detail? :: 5. Describe the QUALITY OF THE MECHANICS, addressing the following: Do they clearly describe what was done and/or how it was studied? Is the writing clear and concise? Do they provide the right level of detail? Do they use too much jargon? Do the figures support the text? :: 6. Provide any OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author (including pointers to missing relevant work). :: 7. Using the scale 1 = Definitely reject 2 = Probably reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Probably accept 5 = Definitely accept provide a numerical rating of the paper's ACCEPTABILITY :: 8. SUMMARIZE your ASSESSMENT of the paper, pointing out which aspects described above you weighted most heavily in your rating in question 7? :: 9. Using the scale 1 = Very unconfident, really just a guess 2 = Rather unconfident, but I know a bit 3 = Moderately confident, I know as much as most 4 = Pretty confident, I know this area well 5 = Extremely confident, I consider myself an expert rate your EXPERTISE in the area addressed by the paper. :: 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) :: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ CHI96 Paper Review Form-End Banner ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ INCLUDE AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH FORM +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++