After your work is submitted, it is reviewed by a panel of experts of varying backgrounds. Each look at four criteria and review independently, before meeting to discuss their evaluations and make recommendations to the final selection committee.
The summary text will most likely be the jury's first introduction to your work, followed by the representative video. Since attendees’ first experience with your work will be visual as they approach your space at SIGGRAPH 2017, initial interest will come from a compelling demonstration. Jurors have this in mind as they evaluate the work and watch your video, so it should show how you plan to demonstrate the technology. Jurors will also read through your abstract for additional details, including how your project is different from and extends beyond previous work, and details on how you’ve achieved your goals. Any questions not fully answered by the video should be addressed with your written materials and representative images.
How exceptional are the ideas, problems, solutions, aesthetics, etc. presented in this submission? How coherently does the submission convey its overall concept? Is the concept similar to existing ones, or does it stand out? This criterion is particularly applicable to submissions that put together existing technologies into a single product. Submissions of this type, where the individual technologies are not necessarily new but their combination is, are evaluated on both the final product and how well proposed technologies integrate to meet the desired goals. Many submissions in this area are rejected because they do what existing systems do, and they do not demonstrate that the proposed approach leads to better results.
How new and fresh is this work? Is it a new, ground-breaking approach to an old problem, or is it an existing approach with a new twist? You must first demonstrate to the jury that your work is sufficiently different from existing approaches. Second, you should evaluate your work in the context of other approaches where appropriate. Is it faster? Easier to use? Does it give better results? Is it more accurate? Many submissions are rejected either because the work is too similar to existing work or because the submission materials did not convince the jury that the improvements were substantial enough.
Will conference attendees want to see this? Will it inspire them? Are the results or approach appealing to a broad audience? This is partly a measure of how broad the potential audience is and partly a measure of the overall clarity and novelty of the submission. A submission in a very niche area is more likely to be accepted if the results are exceptionally better than what exists already, or if the proposed solution might be applicable to other areas. Suggesting additional applications of your technology may potentially widen attendee interest. Finally, the more interesting your actual hands-on demonstration is, the more excited attendees will be to see your work. Be clear about how you want to show your work.
Quality, Craft, and Completeness
This is a measure of how well-written the abstract is and the quality of the supporting materials. The abstract must effectively communicate both the problem and the solution in enough detail and clarity that the jury can evaluate it. You must also convince the jury that your solution works. Many submissions are rejected because, while the problem and solution seemed interesting, the materials did not convince the jury that the solution had actually been implemented and evaluated. Some are rejected because the jury is left guessing when the submission leaves unanswered questions or gaps in research, or its explanations are insufficient, or if the submission does not demonstrate convincing results.