image above is taken from the alt.chi work This is not a paper
The CHI conference (pronounced “kai”) is an annual meeting on the theme of Human Factors in Computing Systems. While rooted in computing, it’s a highly interdisciplinary event—bringing together software engineers, hardware specialists, psychologists, sociologists, and artists/designers to share ideas and learn from each other.
The conference has become an important outlet for Design Research and I have been to several CHI conferences over the last 10 years. Across those years, the most consistently stimulating part of the conference has been alt.chi–a track for risk-taking, boundary-pushing research that fosters inclusion, audacity, and provocative insight.
Perhaps the most important thing that sets alt.chi apart is the ‘open’ peer review process. Rather than ‘double blind’ reviews, where attempts are made to keep both authors and reviewers anonymous from each other, with alt.chi everyone can see who everyone else is. This allows alt.chi “to act as a forum for innovative and insightful work that can go unrecognized through the standard review process” (see post here).
I was disturbed to learn while I was at CHI 2025 that alt.chi, as we’ve known it, has been removed from the programme for CHI 2026–as part of a wider set of financially motivated changes to the conference format.
Asking the question… should we preserve alt.chi?
After hearing the news, I began asking around. Many of my colleagues—like me—hadn’t realised that 2025 would be the last year of alt.chi. Among those who had heard, few felt positive about the decision, and many were keen to find a way to preserve alt.chi, feeling it is a crucial part of what makes the CHI conference the CHI conference.
So, in part to process frustration and sadness, in part to provide an easy means for people to share their disquiet about alt.chi being cancelled, and in part to allow me to tell others who might not know about this change, I created a simple survey. The survey asks Do you think we should try to preserve alt.chi? it also provides a space for people to leave a comment about alt.chi.
At the time of writing 177 people have affirmed that they would like to preserve alt.chi, and there have been a wide array of comments that cover a spectrum of heartfelt, funny, serious, and thought provoking.
As it said at the top of the survey, my intention was always to make the responses public, and that is the main purpose of this blog post.
Responses to the survey
Email addresses have been removed, and names reduced to initials for pseudonymity.
Please do take the time to scroll through the comments, there is an amazing array of perspectives, stories, and reasons to consider how impactful and significant alt.chi’s unique format is.
Arriving at a position on the situation
Embarking on this little journey has meant I’ve had to consider my position on the issues in detail, and, I’m sharing that here.
First, I understand the need to reconfigure the CHI conference (explained comprehensively in 1, 2, 3, 4 blog posts).
Next, I had a great conversation with Jennifer Rode who is part of the Ignite group. They have a range of initiatives that all support people and ideas that are at the margins, including the idea of alt.CHI Redux, which is the idea of a new standalone conference to fill the space left by alt.chi.
Moreover, via my LinkedIn post drawing attention to the survey, I also had some interaction with Anna Cox, who I believe was involved in making the decision to remove alt.chi from the conference. Anna said they “encourage authors to submit speculative and provocative work to the conference in the Full Papers and Extended Abstract tracks” as well as welcoming proposals for Workshops, Meet-Ups, and Panels.
With all those points in mind, and the wide range of responses to the survey, I’ve come to the conclusions below.
Do the papers and extended abstracts tracks offer a route for sharing work that is equivalent to alt.chi?
No.
There are two routes to submit research articles to the new-look conference. They are papers and extended abstracts. From what I can tell, neither of these have the option for the open peer review process that is the key part of what makes alt.chi unique. It is very unlikely that the majority of the experimental, boundary pushing, provocative work that alt.chi is known for would be appropriate for the extended abstracts and papers tracks.
“work that can conceivably be accepted to the full papers track is generally inappropriate for submission to alt.chi”
The quote above from the alt.chi 2025 chairs neatly expresses how the open review process facilitates a culture that is resonant, but, not interchangeable.
What about workshops, meet-ups and panels, do they fill the gap?
No.
Whilst it is the case that these types of events could include some of the same type of content that alt.chi would feature, they are fundamentally different instruments. A key difference is that they do not provide a mechanism for provocative, boundary-pushing, and experimental work to (1) be supported at the conference with a full, stand-up-in-front-of-an-audience presentation and (2) end up with an entry in the Digital Library where CHI research is made available for others to access after the conference.
While alt.chi papers have traditionally been entered into the Digital Library as extended abstracts and not ‘full papers’ (extended abstracts are viewed as less valuable), the fact that they were entered into the Digital Library at all was enough for many authors to secure funding to attend the conference.
Is a new separate event or standalone alt.chi conference ‘the solution’?
Not really.
I like the idea of alt.chi in a pub, and I also like the motivation for alt.CHI redux from Ignite. However, it seems that by removing the subversive and unorthodox content from within the main programme, the overall intrigue of the conference will be reduced. Moreover, by removing this important route to publication (that is some peoples’ sole route to publishing at CHI) the diversity of the conference’s attendees will likely be reduced too.
It is the case that a separate event or standalone conference could provide an alternative intellectual and publishing outlet for those that previously shared their work at alt.chi. However, starting something entirely new clearly comes with its own challenges, but the main limitation of this response is that removing alt.chi from CHI diminishes the CHI conference itself.
Could one track in the new look conference have an open review process, and could it be called alt.chi?
Yes–easily
It seems to me that the changes to the format of CHI are entirely compatible with alt.chi continuing at the 2026 edition of CHI. The only bit of infrastructure that alt.chi needs to be viable and integrate seamlessly into the new format is an open review process. What’s more that open review process doesn’t seem to pose any significant impact the restructuring decisions that were made for reasons of financial efficiency. All reviewing is done for free, of course!
Takeaways
What’s the upshot of all this? If alt.chi does not appear at the 2026 CHI conference then:
- The outlet for the most audacious research at the CHI conference, won’t exist
- The conversations arising from those presentations won’t happen
- The people that would have presented that work won’t be there
- The conference will be less rich, less varied, and ultimately less good at doing the things conferences are supposed to do
Alongside this, there does not seem to be any compelling reason why alt.chi cannot co-exist the new structure.
-
To the chairs of the 2026 CHI conference and the SIGCHI steering committee: please preserve alt.chi for the 2026 conference, and beyond.
-
To anyone who is a fan of alt.chi: if you think it is interesting please do share this post and the link to the survey.
The survey responses are becoming a wonderful collection in their own right, I hope that it continues to grow.
The more that stories we have that show the value of this unique part of CHI, the more likely it will be that an appropriately shaped space will be carved out within the new format that sits right at the heart of the conference–exactly where, in my view, alt.chi should be.
