Key issues

  1. Practical questions --> research answers --- hard to map
  2. Impenetrable papers
  3. Communication -- no shared language

Other workshop issues

- Abstract vs. Engineering speed
- Can't find the people to do the research, not interested in my problem
- Need research to make good things
- Difficult to apply research in cost-effective ways
- Constraints of applying research
- Hard to tell practitioners which method to use
- Practitioner access/time to review literature
  • Companies do not provide access
  • Google scholar
  • Need our version of Carl Sagan
- Cross-disciplinary work is hard (both for researchers and practitioners)

Additional issues from SIG

  • Fragmented professional associations
  • Hard for researchers to find practitioners
  • Hard to tell the strengths and weaknesses of each splintered community in the UX umbrella


  • Expand the CHI keyword list
  • how to create a brokerage system to connect Researchers and Practitioners
  • Give list of 3 keywords that you want to see papers on
    • (do this for UPA as well)
  • Mentorship programs
  • Practitioners can cite papers that helped their products
  • grand challenge decision competition
  • UI bootcamp
  • identify 3 themes for each CHI conference
    • create a wiki where Practitioners can submit a Q
    • how are Rs rewarded
  • Best Practitioner paper award/ application impact award
  • Face to face meetings of researchers and practitioners on topics
  • Research "impact" requirements/measures
  • Value of research to practitioners (JUS section?)
  • Review process, "take practice into consideration", benefits statement, ideally have an editor of the benefits statement
  • Help researchers write for practitioners
  • Get a few sentences from tentative accepts for the program - impact for practitioners. Or, ask the reviewers to write the statement. Final? Add a field to the review form.