Thank you to everyone who participated in the CHI post-conference survey, which was open from May 12 to May 30. Overall, 908 people participated in the survey, representing approximately 17% of the total number of CHI attendees (5,309 in total).
This article provides a concise overview of the survey findings, with interpretations based on respondents’ open comments.
Note: In this blog post, “participants” should be interpreted as survey respondents, which represent only a subset of actual participants.
Overall experience
The following chart shows the distribution of respondents based on their type of attendance at the conference. The green bar represents respondents who attended the conference in person, while the brown bar represents those who attended virtually. Approximately 6% of survey respondents attended virtually, which is close to the actual 8% virtual attendance for CHI ’25.

In the survey, 52 respondents shared their reasons for choosing virtual attendance over on-site attendance. These reasons are reported in the table below (respondents were allowed to select multiple reasons).
What factor(s) did influence your decision to attend the conference virtually rather than in person?
————————————————————————-
| 34.62% | My decision to attend virtually was influenced by ecological reasons. |
| 5.77% | My decision to attend virtually was influenced by cultural reasons. |
| 13.46% | My decision to attend virtually was influenced by medical reasons.|
| 44.23% | My decision to attend virtually was influenced by personal reasons. |
| 28.85% | My decision to attend virtually was for other reasons. |
The chart below shows responses to the question “How valuable was your CHI experience?” broken down by attendance type: on-site (left) and virtual (right). On-site attendance was rated more highly, largely due to opportunities for networking—such as reconnecting with colleagues and meeting new people—and for engaging with timely, high-quality scientific content. In contrast, feedback from virtual attendees was less positive. While this year’s option for remote presenters to give livestreamed talks was appreciated, survey responses expressed a desire for greater interaction, particularly the ability for presenters to see and engage with their audience. Virtual participants also regretted that online offerings were not clearly labelled in the program. They would like more sessions to be livestreamed or recorded and regretted the limited activity on the Discord server, which hindered networking opportunities. The value of in-person attendance is further reflected in responses to the question posed to on-site attendees “If the conference had taken place fully online, with only virtual presentations, would you still have attended?”: 56% respondents of on-site participants answered no.

Conference Activities and Tools
The survey included a series of questions in which respondents rated various aspects of the conference, including sessions and activities (such as papers, demos, posters, panels, SIGs, student competitions, workshops, and keynotes), as well as events (receptions, exhibits, job fairs, and town hall meeting).
On-site attendees gave largely positive feedback on sessions and activities, with most venues receiving similarly high appreciation. While typical challenges of a large-scale conference like CHI (such as overcrowded rooms and numerous parallel sessions) were reported, in-person participants also gave positive evaluation to nearly all activities. One exception was the opening keynote, which received mixed appreciations and was seen by some as misaligned with the CHI audience. As in previous years (see, for example, 2024 and 2023), the Job Fair was also not very well received, with participants noting a lack of energy. Finally, participants expressed a desire for the SIGCHI Town Hall to allow more time for discussion.
Feedback from virtual attendees on sessions and activities was limited, echoing concerns already mentioned: a lack of clarity about what content was available online and limited opportunities for engaging with the audience.
Respondents also evaluated how well different tools and infrastructure met their needs, including the conference website, the Progressive Web App (PWA available at https://programs.sigchi.org/) used to navigate the program, and other elements such as livestreamed and recorded content, the Discord server, and Q&A options for both on-site and remote presenters.
Feedback on the PWA was consistent with last year’s: participants found it useful but reported difficulties with navigation, login requirements, and reliance on a stable internet connection. Comments also pointed to suboptimal handling of Q&A. While attendees were encouraged to submit questions via the PWA, the feature seemed underutilized. On-site participants could ask questions in person, but several expressed frustration regarding the very limited time allocated for Q&A during on-site, live sessions.
Many virtual participants would like to see more engagement on the Discord server. Some respondents even reported being unaware of its existence.
Participants’ evaluations of these various tools and aspects are shown in the charts below, illustrating the challenges of effectively supporting diverse participation needs at CHI scale.

To support asynchronous participation, presenters were required to submit pre-recorded videos. For papers, case studies, and alt.chi, these videos were limited to 10 minutes. Posters (including LBW, student competitions, and the Doctoral Consortium) and demos were limited to 3 minutes. Survey respondents were asked to evaluate whether these durations were appropriate from both attendee and presenter perspectives, and share any comment they might have.
Half of the respondents reported that the video format worked well for them. Among the remaining half, many state that they had not watched any videos. Comments from attendees indicated that while the videos are good for asynchronous viewing, some questioned whether the preparation effort was worth the benefit. A few suggested the duration should be flexible, as viewers can choose what to skip. From the presenters’ perspective, open comments pointed at the effort to produce videos, which is considered too high. Many recommended that live presentations be recorded instead of requiring separate pre-recorded videos.
Accessibility
Approximately 3% of survey respondents requested an accessibility-related feature for the conference. All participants had the opportunity to rate various aspects of the conference, with their responses summarized in the chart below. Open comments help contextualize these ratings, revealing frustrations with the number of requirements placed on authors during the submission process, and particularly those related to TAPS.

Additional suggestions included providing more food options for special diets. Some of them suggested more clearly labelling allergens, and providing a dedicated table for dietary-restricted meals. Participants also expressed concerns that social events, which are organized independently of the official CHI program, felt exclusionary to some participants.
The survey also asked about both positive and negative experiences related to accessibility. On the positive side, attendees especially appreciated quiet/sensory rooms, the availability of sign language interpreters, and reserved seating in paper sessions. On the negative side, respondents cited navigation challenges within the convention center, overcrowded rooms, and a general lack of seating for those unable to stand for extended periods.
Willingness to attend CHI ’26 and CHI ’27
The charts below show responses to the final questions regarding the likelihood of attending CHI ’26 in Barcelona (Spain) and CHI ’27 in Pittsburgh (USA). The results reveal a marked difference in projected attendance based on location, with over 100 respondents expressing significant reservations about traveling to the United States.

ACM Open
This year, the survey also included three questions to assess respondents’ awareness and understanding of the ACM Open initiative and its implications for Article Processing Charges (APCs). They are illustrated by the chart below.

The survey collected a mix of responses voicing enthusiasm, confusion, and concern around the changes that will accompany ACM Open—ACM’s plan to embrace 100% open access starting January 1, 2026. The cost to authors, particularly early career and industry authors and those from academic institutions not yet covered, remains the key point of concern, which SIGCHI is preparing to address (alongside other SIGs). SIGCHI is committed to supporting the community through this transition and will share more details regarding related workflows as they become available, providing updates regarding waivers and support for covering Article Processing Charges (APCs), as we approach 2026.
Thank you!
As a final note, we would like to thank all the respondents who took the time to provide valuable feedback. We have carefully read and analyzed all the detailed comments, categorizing them into relevant themes and summarizing the key points. The input and insights shared by the attendees are very valuable to everyone involved in SIGCHI, the CHI Steering Committee, and the overall organization of CHI.