Interactive Posters

Reviewers will use this form to document and communicate their evaluation of your Interactive Poster submission. By reviewing this form, you can see the types of things reviewers consider when reading your submission.
               CHI 96 Interactive Poster Review Form (Draft)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


POSTER NUMBER ::
POSTER TITLE (shorten to taste)::

AUTHOR(S) ::

REVIEWER NUMBER ::

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE MAIN POINTS OF THE POSTER:

OVERALL RATING:
( 1= definitely accept   
  2= probably accept   
  3 = could go either way 
  4 = probably reject    
  5 = definitely reject )

REVIEWERŽS EXPERTISE
Rate your expertise in the area addressed by the poster
 (1 = extremely confident, I consider myself an expert; 
  2 = pretty confident, I know this area well; 
  3 = moderately confident, I know as much as most; 
  4 = rather unconfident, but I know a bit; 
  5 = very unconfident, really just a guess):


DETAILED RATINGS:
(include comments where appropriate)

1. Originality and Innovativeness of work:
(1 = highly original and innovative; 
 5 = no or minimal original content)

2. Clarity of goals and results:
(1 = clearly stated;  
 5 = topic of work not clear at all)

3. Clarity of methods:
(1 = clearly stated; 
 5 = method not clear at all)

4. Clarity of results:
(1 = clearly stated; 
 5 = results not clear at all)

5. Credibility of interpretation of results:
(1 = results are very credible; 
 5 = results are not credible or unsupported)

6. Importance of work:
(1 = generates may ideas about new research topics, very high practical 
     relevance, fills an important need; 
 5 = nobody will need this)

7. Quality of writing:
(1 = clear writing, easy to understand; 
 5 = unclear writing, impossible to follow)

8. Visual quality of the poster:
(1 = very good visual quality;
5 = nobody will be attracted by the visual quality)


PRESENTATION MEDIUM
Suitability of prefered form of presentation (lecture format or 
interactive visual presentation)
(1 = present as specified; 
 3= could go either way; 
 5 = should be presented in other format) 

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR(S)
Provide any other comments you believe would be useful to the
author (including pointers to missing relevant work):


COMMENTS FOR THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
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):