brycewang-stanford CHI Supplementary Materials
CHI collects the paper, the video figure, and every supplementary file together on the one submission deadline (September 10, 2026 for CHI 2027, per chi2027.acm.org, read 2026-07-08). There is no later supplement slot, so supplement production is deadline-week work that must be scheduled like writing. Everything uploaded is part of the anonymous review record; everything accepted ships to the ACM Digital Library beside the paper, permanently.
What goes where
| Material | Phase | Governing rule |
|---|---|---|
| Video figure (≤ ~5 min, illustrates the work) | With submission | Anonymized; closed captions required |
| Appendices (instruments, extra tables, prompts) | With submission | Reviewed at reviewer discretion; paper must stand alone |
| Code / data archive | With submission | De-identified, anonymous, no .git history |
| Consent/IRB templates | With submission | Templated versions only — these files name institutions by design |
| Video preview (~30 s pitch) | Camera-ready (publication-ready deadline) | Accepted papers only; captioned; goes to DL and program |
| Final supplements | Publication-ready deadline | De-anonymized, captioned, archival quality |
The self-containment rule cuts across all of it: reviewers must be able to judge the contribution from the PDF alone. Supplements deepen; they never carry a load-bearing result.
The video figure
SIGCHI's video guide (sigchi.org/resources/guides-for-authors/videos/) sets the expectations this pack verifies: video figures illustrate key aspects of the work, run up to about five minutes, are archived in the DL, and every video needs a closed-caption file (SRT, SBV, or VTT). Craft rules that survive review:
- Show the interaction, not slides. Thirty seconds of real use beats two minutes of bullet points read aloud.
- Leave titles on screen long enough to read (the guide suggests up to ~10 seconds for video figures).
- Anonymize the audio track too: no narrator saying the lab's name, no institutional logos on walls or screens, no identifiable bystanders, and consent for every visible participant — including for eventual public archiving, not just review.
- Write the caption transcript yourself (or correct an auto-transcript line by line); auto-captions mangle technical vocabulary exactly where precision matters.
- Audio-describe or narrate what matters visually: the captions plus narration should let a listener who cannot see the screen follow the contribution.
# Video figure QA before PCS upload
ffprobe -v error -show_entries format=duration,size -of default=nw=1 videofigure.mp4
ffmpeg -i videofigure.mp4 -i videofigure.srt -c copy -c:s mov_text captioned.mp4
ffprobe -v error -select_streams s -show_entries stream=codec_name captioned.mp4 # captions present?
# Archive hygiene for the code/data supplement
zip -r supplement.zip supplement/ -x '*.git*' '*.DS_Store' '*node_modules*'
unzip -l supplement.zip | grep -Ei 'consent|irb|\.env|id_rsa|\.key' && echo "PURGE THESE"
Anonymization has more surface area here than in the paper
The PDF gets proofread; supplements leak. Recurring channels, all desk-reject grade
(chi-submission): PDF/Office metadata inside appendix files, .git histories with
author emails, notebook outputs showing home-directory paths with usernames, OSF or
GitHub links registered to named accounts (use the platforms' anonymous-view
mechanisms), app-store links for the studied prototype, and consent forms with
letterhead. Sweep the exact files being uploaded, not the working copies.
Structure the archive for a tired reviewer
One README at the root, mapping files to paper sections; instruments in one
folder; data dictionary beside the data; a one-command entry point for any code
(chi-reproducibility holds the transparency ladder). A reviewer gives the archive
five minutes — spend your effort on the first five minutes.
The video preview (after acceptance)
The ~30-second preview is optional but disproportionately valuable: it plays on
YouTube and beside the DL record, and is how conference attendees choose sessions.
One idea, one strong visual, captioned, titles readable in ~4 seconds per the guide.
Produce it in February against the publication-ready deadline (2027-02-18), when the
camera-ready is stable — not in deadline-week September (chi-camera-ready).
Cycle-volatile items
File-size caps and accepted formats for PCS uploads, whether the current cycle asks for specific supplement manifests, and any per-subcommittee expectations were 待核实 at check time — read the live "Guide to a Successful Submission" and video pages for the cycle before finalizing the package.
Output format
[Package] video figure ✓/✗ (captions ✓/✗) · appendix ✓/✗ · code/data ✓/✗ · README ✓/✗
[Self-containment] paper stands without supplements: yes/no
[Anonymity sweep] metadata · git history · links · audio track · footage consent — clean?
[Consent coverage] archival publication consent for all visible participants: yes/no
[Deferred to camera-ready] video preview · de-anonymized archives
[Blocking issue] <what stops upload today>