CHI and the practitioner dilemma

This year’s CHI conference was much like any other: the parade of papers, panels, exhibits; entertaining plenary speakers; an overcrowded invigorating reception; and a micro-Design Expo. There were a few new things (like the march to get to the reception) and many of the same traditional things (a second student design competition, a solid program with traction). But there was something else that most of you probably weren’t aware of: an outright blow-up between practitioners and academics at no less a venue than the usually staid SIGCHI Membership Meeting. The meeting started in its traditional stolid and understated manner. Having recited overall accomplishments for the last year at a gallant clip, vice president for membership Julie Jacko and president Joe Konstan arrived at the discussion of CHI 2006. Gary Olson, CHI 2006 chair, was given the floor to discuss a new organization of the conference for next year’s event in Montreal. His remarks were met at first with what one might describe as brooding silence. However, a spark was ignited when a couple of CHI big spenders—those that spend tens of thousands of U.S. dollars sponsoring, exhibiting, and sending scores of attendees—stood up and challenged the SIGCHI executive committee and the conference management committee with the following: “Either you make more practitioner-relevant materials available at CHI next year or we will not be coming back.” The well-intentioned challenge became almost surreal when some tenured academics reacted furiously charging that these practitioners were trying to ruin the papers