Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Short Papers HCI 2012

Myself and Dr. Per Ola Kristensson are the Short Papers chairs for the BCS HCI 2012 conference. HCI 2012 is the 26th Annual Conference of the Specialist HCI group of the BCS and the short papers track has a submission date of June 15, 2012. The full paper track for HCI 2012 has a deadline of the 30th March 2012.

From the main call:

We invite submissions for short papers that address any area of HCI. Authors are encouraged to submit late-breaking research results that show timely and innovative ideas. Short paper submissions should report original work and must not have been published previously or be a condensed version of previously published papers.

This year we have returned to the founding theme of the conference: “People and Computers”. This is to encapsulate and highlight the growing diversity of our field of HCI in one event. Technology is now common in all walks of life and HCI practitioners and researchers have more areas of impact than ever before. We want the conference to reflect this growing importance and diversity.

Submission Tracks
The conference will have usual tracks of high-quality research papers, written as either Full or Short papers. Full papers should be a maximum of 10 pages in length. These submissions should be of original work and should not have been previously published. Short papers should be a maximum of 6 pages and should be compact short pieces of original work. There is also a ‘work-in-progress’ category. We strongly encourage participants to reflect the spirit of the track by submitting early-stage, surprising or incomplete results that may be of relevance and interest to the community. The submission dates for the tracks are below.
Following on from last year we have also included an alt-HCI track. This track is for work that highlights a more extreme, unusual and less mainstream side of HCI. The more alternative the work is, the better. We are looking for high quality contributions that might be highly contentious, using atypical methodologies, critical of established ideas or focused in an unconventional domain. If your work is alternative, controversial and interesting, then alt-HCI is the track for you.
The conference will also host a variety of workshops and a doctorial consortium. These will be held on the leafy campus of the University of Birmingham, in Edgbaston. A redbrick University and member of the Russell group, it offers a pleasant green environment.

We encourage submissions that focus on human interaction with technology and computer systems. Whether your work is at the fundamental end of the spectrum (theory, design, or principle), or at the practical end (evaluation, product, or impact) we are interested in encouraging high-quality submissions to the conference.

The dates for submission for each paper track are:

Full Papers:- 30th March 2012 (Notification:- 31st May 2012)
Short Papers, WiP & Alt-HCI:- 15th June 2012 (Notification:-27th July 2012)

Relevant topics areas include but are by no means limited to:

  • Persuasive Technology
  • Mobile Interactions
  • User Experience
  • Touchtable interactions
  • Affective Computing/Interactions
  • Usability Engineering
  • Accessibility
  • Child Computer Interaction
  • Interaction Design
  • UCD4D
  • Recommender Systems
  • Annotation
  • Brain Computer Interfaces
  • Technology and Culture
  • E-Government

Friday, December 16, 2011

Call for MobileHCI 2012 Tutorials

MobileHCI 2012 continues to build on the tradition of previous conferences with a high quality tutorial program. We invite proposals for 1, 2 or 3 hour tutorials on emerging and established areas of research and practice. Tutorials will be held on the first day of the conference and are expected to provide participants with new insights and skills relevant to the area.

A MobileHCI tutorial is an in-depth presentation of one or more state-of-the-art topics presented by researchers or practitioners within the field of Mobile HCI. The scope for tutorials is broad and includes topics such as new technologies, research approaches and methodologies, design practices, user/consumer insights, investigations into new services/applications/interfaces, and much more.

A tutorial should focus on its topic in detail and include references to the "must read" papers or materials within its domain. A participatory approach in which the tutorial participants actively engage in exercises is welcomed, though not required. In addition we welcome proposals incorporating hands-on work where the outcome is a working prototype. The tutorial organizers will work with the main session organisers to provide 2 spots in the demo session to showcase the best prototypes that emerge from the tutorial program.

The expected audience will vary in terms of prior knowledge, but will largely consist of researchers, Ph.D. students, practitioners, and educators.

We encourage you to review the scope and nature of the previous tutorial program at

Submission Instructions:

  1. We may invite a small number of tutorials from Bay Area experts that we think will be particularly interesting to attendees. In order to avoid overlaps with those tutorials we suggest reviewing the 2012 Tutorials page (which we will update to reflect invited tutorials) before submitting.
  2. Remember that a MobileHCI 2012 tutorial should last between 1 and 3 hours.
  3. In your proposal include a brief biography of the presenter(s), the title of the tutorial, and a sufficiently detailed description of the tutorial (the intended topics, the depths to which you will cover them, and activities that attendees will engage in) to convey what you expect attendees to have learned at the end of the tutorial.
  4. Send a PDF version of your tutorial proposal directly to the Tutorial Chairs at 
  5. The Tutorials Chairs will evaluate all proposals and communicate acceptance decisions to the proposers. 
  6. Accepted tutorial proposals will be included in the main conference proceedings


  • Submission deadline:  May 4th, 2012 
  • Proposers notified:      June 11th, 2012

We look forward to your submissions!

2012 Tutorial Chairs

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Pervasive 2012 - Doctoral Consortium

The Pervasive 2012 doctoral consortium provides a collegial and supportive forum in which PhD students can present and defend their doctoral research-in-progress for constructive feedback and discussion. The consortium is guided by a panel of experienced researchers and practitioners with both academic and industrial experience. It offers students the valuable opportunity to receive high-quality feedback and fresh perspectives from recognized international experts in the field, and to engage with other senior doctoral students.
Applicants should be far enough into their PhD research to have identified the salient issues and appropriate research methodology, as well as achieved some results. Preference will be given to applicants who are at a stage where they have completed some portion of the research but are still at a stage that will still permit them to incorporate feedback received at the consortium into their planned PhD research.


The doctoral consortium will be a seminar-style event taking place the day before the main Pervasive 2012 sessions. Time will be allotted to each student for a brief research presentation, and for in-depth, constructive discussion amongst the panellists and other participants. In order to allow for sufficient depth of discussion, the number of accepted participants will be limited to ten.
For the 2012 Pervasive doctoral consortium we aim to include a number of new features including a panel session. The short "Ask a PhD" panel session is a free-form question-and-answer discussion in which the consortium panellists will share their advice and experiences regarding such topics as going on the job market, international career paths, academic versus industry career paths, post-docs versus permanent positions, job offer negotiation, and other topics of relevance to PhD students. This session will serve as a capstone event to the consortium, allowing students to reflect and consider important career issues together.


Submissions (of up to 5 pages) should be formatted according to the guidelines of Springer's LNCS format. A maximum of 4 pages should be devoted to the Research Summary, described below and 1 page for the students biographical sketch, also described below. The topic scope for submission to the doctoral consortium is the same as those listed in the Pervasive 2012 call for papers. Submissions should consist of the following:
  1. Research summary describing the work in progress, and including a 100 word abstract. Things to consider for inclusion in the research summary are:
    • the expected contribution to the field;
    • the original idea or thesis statement;
    • the problem domain and the specific problem addressed;
    • a brief overview of related work;
    • the methodological approach;
    • research carried out and results so far.
    All research summaries should also outline what work remains to be done for the dissertation and indicate the plan for completion.
  2. Student biographical sketch, including the names and affiliations of the research advisor(s), the date that the student began the PhD programme, and the expected date of completion.
All submissions should be made using the PCS submission system.
All submissions will be reviewed by the DC chairs and consortium panellists. If accepted, an applicant may be asked to make minor clarifications and edits to their research summary before the final camera-ready version is due. The accepted doctoral consortium submissions will be published in the adjunct proceedings of the Pervasive 2012 program.

Critical Dates

Doctoral Consortium Chairs

  • Elaine M. Huang, University of Zurich, Switzerland
  • Aaron Quigley, University of St. Andrews, UK

Thursday, November 10, 2011

November 2011 - Editorial: Welcome to Computers––A New Open Access Journal for Computer Science

Aaron Quigley 
Editorial: Welcome to Computers––A New Open Access Journal for Computer Science Computers 20111(1), 1-2; doi:10.3390/computers1010001 

- published online 10 November 2011

For the past seven decades, computers have radically changed the world we live in. From machines for calculation, computers are now platforms for information processing and computation, supporting the entire spectrum of human endeavour. While computer science is a relatively young field, it is shaping how people live in our modern world. There is not an area of human society that has not been affected by computers and the power they afford us. Computer science touches on every facet of science, art, engineering and economics. Its impact ranges from electronic commerce to improved medical devices; and from enhanced communication to new forms of media and entertainment. The future, with ubiquitous computational power and natural user interfaces, will extend and enhance all human capabilities. To reach this future we need to quickly and freely disseminate our cutting edge research results globally, and this journal aims to help us achieve that.

See full welcome to this new journal here

Quigley, A. Welcome to Computers––A New Open Access Journal for Computer Science. Computers 20111, 1-2.

Saturday, October 08, 2011

October 2011 - Challenges in Information Visualisation

I gave a seminar in the School of Informatics in the Univeristy of Edinburgh on October 7th 2011 on the topic of the Challenges in Information Visualisation.

Information Visualisation is a research area that focuses on the use of graphical techniques to present abstract data in an explicit form. Such static (pictures) or dynamic presentations help people formulate an understanding of data and an internal model of it for reasoning about. Such pictures of data are an external artefact supporting decision making. While sharing many of the same goals of Scientific Visualisation, Human Computer Interaction, User Interface Design and Computer Graphics, Information Visualisation focuses on the visual presentation of data without a physical or geometric form.

As such it relies on research in mathematics, data mining, data structures, algorithms, graph drawing, human-computer interaction, cognitive psychology, semiotics, cartography, interactive graphics, imaging and visual design. In this talk Aaron will present a brief history of social-network analysis and visualisation, introduce analysis and layout algorithms we have developed for visualising such data. Our recent analysis focuses on actor identification through network tuning and our Social Network Assembly Pipeline, SNAP which operates on the premise of “social network inference” where we have studied it experimentally with the analysis of 10,000,000 record sets without explicit relations. Our visulisation has focussed on large scale node-link diagrams, small multiples, dynamic network displays and egocentric layouts.  The talk concludes with a number of challenges and open research questions we face as researchers in using visualisation in an attempt to present dynamic data sources.

Monday, August 15, 2011

August 2011 Papers - UMAP 2011, MobileHCI 2011 and ASONAM 2011

I recently presented a paper co-authored with Mike Bennett at Stanford University entitled “Creating Personalized Digital Human Models Of Perception For Visual Analytics” at UMAP 2011 in Girona, Spain, on Thursday July 14th. 

You can see see a video of the user modelling anthem below. 

Umer Rashid and I co-authored a paper with Jarmo Kauko and Jonna Häkkiläat at Nokia Research Center entitled “Proximal and Distal Selection of Widgets: Designing Distributed UI for Mobile Interaction with Large Display”. 

It will be presented by Umer Rashid at MobileHCI 2011 in Stockholm, Sweden on Friday September 2nd. 

I also co-authored a paper with Michael Farrugia and Neil Hurely entitled “SNAP: Towards a validation of the Social Network Assembly Pipeline” which was presented by Michael Farrugia at the International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, on Monday July 25th.

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

My civil partnership speech

I would like to thank you, our friends and family for being with us here today on this next great stage in our journey through life together. I love Bradley so very much and I'm very thankful you were here to witness our Union. Or as Bradley's father put it "so we weren't living in sin any more". I'll try to keep this short, as I speak too often and perhaps too long as you all know. 

Tonight there are many things I'm thankful for but I do have one regret and one hope for the future. So, firstly, I am very thankful that the surprise venue remained a secret. I hope the surprise was worth the wait? Keeping this a secret from all of you was quite difficult and stressful. We have come to realise that children love surprises but adults, not so much. So, again I wanted to thank all the staff of the Royal Scotsman, our photographers Huma and Matthew and all the staff at the Balmoral hotel from earlier today. Indeed there were many people who have helped make this such a special and memorable day. While myself and Brad were very excited about our civil partnership ceremony here on the Royal Scotsman and surprise for you. I can assure you that all the staff have been simply bursting with excitement!  

As Brad said, I also wanted to thank our friends and family who have come from a great distance. We really appreciate your efforts in coming so far. Given the mystery and constraints we placed on you I wanted to complement everyone on how splendid you all look. I would like to thank my brothers Paul and Gavin for being here and my sister in law Mary. Thank you also to Mary's parents, my Aunt and Uncle Des and Phyl and cousins and friends for being here with us. Thank you, one and all. 

Of course, my thanks go beyond simply today. I am very thankful for having Bradley in my life. As you might know Quigley men can be a little bossy and high maintenance. So finding someone to put up with me it quite the miracle. Finding someone like Bradley is, I think you will agree, a miracle squared. We are not very lovey dovey men, I think that's fair to say, but I think our love for each other runs very deeply beyond anything superficial. I will always remember what my brother Gavin said when he was married, that "his smile returned when he met Gillian his wife", who sadly cannot be here tonight. When I am away from home, sometimes I will think of Brad and a smile will brighten my face. Brad is that sort of man, just the thought of him will gladden your heart and bring a smile to your face.

Of course, I always say and firmly believe that one should never live life with any regrets. Sadly, I do have one regret. And that is, that my parents never got to meet Bradley. I have been very lucky to have Bradley's parents Steve and Gaile in my life who have treated me as their son, in every way. The kindness they have extended me is surely a sign of the great love and affection they have for Brad. Still, I do wish John and Noelle my parents could have met Brad and his family. I know my mother and Brad would have been as thick as thieves and ganging up on me, I'm sure! John and Steve would have found each other like minded men. And of course Gaile and Noelle, would have found each other as sisters who live continents apart. I like to picture my parents taking Brad under their wing as his parents have for me. Of course, I feel they are here with us and I think they would be proud I found someone like Brad to spend my life with. They might say, "he is the sort of man, all men should aspire to be". Kind and caring, considerate and courteous, sophisticated and stylish and of course, warm and loving. 

Clearly, given the amount of time myself and Brad have known each other its safe to say that we haven't rushed into our decision today. Of course a combination of legal hurdles and our migratory lifestyle over the past 14 years means that here, in Scotland, is the first place we have been able to exchange vows in front of family and friends. Instead, wouldn't it have been nice, that like any other couple, we could have decided on the day we met perhaps to simply have eloped! Can't you just picture Brad eloping? No? Perhaps not? 

Of course now, as I cast my mind back the 5032 days to when we first met in University I cannot be so sure that we would have eloped. We sat in the court yard of the students union in the University of Newcastle, quite the romantic spot and I proceeded to captivate Brad with my worldly advice and wisdom. Well, at least that's how I saw it. Brad on the other hand had to excuse himself three times to call Gaile with increasingly inventive excuses as to why he was coming home late, as she was to collect him at the train station. I was thinking, O he is dazzled. He was thinking, o, won't he shut up! Of course as Peter Pan said, all of this has happened before, and it will all happen again. Indeed, to this day I will still regale Brad with some of the same witty words and scandalous stories, thinking it's the first time I'm told him, only to be informed that no, I've heard this before, and yes, it was funnier the last time. O, dear. 

So, to conclude. I think back to the gift I gave Bradley when he turned 21 the year after we met. In a book I gave him, I wrote the words of Mark Twain which seem appropriate to repeat now:
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did. 
So, throw off the bowlines. 
Sail away from the safe harbor. 
Catch the trade winds in your sails. 

The past 14 years have certainly been this, travelling to over 50 countries together and living in 5 countries on four continents. So to you Brad, I look forward to the rest of our lives together, for everything we have left to explore, for all the discoveries we are yet to make and for being there for each other to ensure our dreams don't go unfulfilled. 

In the stormy seas of life you are my safe harbour. 

Thank you.

(All of our photos are online and you can read a piece Sian Meades in the Times Weddings section wrote on us. There is a little more background on me here.)

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

July 2011 Professional Activities

This year and next I will be, 

a program committee member for the 7th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, CONTEXT’11, which will which will be held in Karlsruhe, Germany from Sept 26th to 30th, 2011

a program committee member for the 3rd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI’11, which will be held in Salzburg, Austria, from Nov 29th to Dec 2nd, 2011

a program committee member for the 8th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services, MobiQuitous 2011, which will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark from Dec 6th to 9th, 2011

a program committee member for the 6th International Conference on Tangible, embedded and embodied interaction, TEI 2012, which will be held in Kingston, Canada from February 19th to 22nd, 2012

a program committee member for the10th IEEE Pervasive Computing and Communication, PerCom 2012, which will be held in Lugano, Switzerland from March 19th to 23rd, 2012

I am co-chairing with Elaine Huang from the University of Zurich the Doctoral Consortium at the 10th International Conference on Pervasive Computing, Pervasive 2012, which will be held in Newcastle, UK from June 19th – 22nd, 2012

Saturday, June 25, 2011

June 2011 - Upcoming Summer School

Some of the equipment for Summer School
Some of the equipment for Summer School
You can see some of the Arduino and Kinect equipment we have for the summer school here starting on June 26th with an Arduino workshop. The focus of this summer school is to introduce a new generation of researchers to the latest research advances in multimodal systems, in the context of applications, services and technologies for tourists (Digital Tourism). Where mobile and desktop applications can rely on eyes down interaction, the tourist aims to keep their eyes up and focussed on the painting, statue, mountain, ski run, castle, loch or other sight before them. In this school we focus on multimodal input and output interfaces, data fusion techniques and hybrid architectures, vision, speech and conversational interfaces, haptic interaction, mobile, tangible and virtual/augmented multimodal UIs, tools and system infrastructure issues for designing interfaces and their evaluation. Mornings are devoted to seminars from our international speakers followed by guided group work sessions or focussed time for project development. We are proving a dedicated lab with development machines for the duration of the school along with access to a MERL Diamondtouch, a Microsoft Surface (v1.0), a range of mobile devices, arduinos, phidget kits, pico-projectors, Kinects and haptic displays. As we expect participants from a range of backgrounds to attend we will form groups who will, through a guided process, propose a demonstrator they can realise during the summer school which they will demonstrate and showcase on the final day.

Friday, May 13, 2011

May 2011: How to Write a Good Review

In Computer Science in St Andrews following an email from Professor Kevin Hammond in May 2011 on reviewing and the reviewing process we had a very fruitful discussion that I'd like to summarise for myself and my students here. Kevin is presenting on this topic, during the 2011 SICSA PhD conference in Edinburgh in May 2011. I'm going to continue to edit this page as I develop new insights or as ideas and pointers present themselves. 

Given the nature of Computer Science, our conferences are a very important pathway for disseminating the results of our work. Other people, perhaps you, might disagree but this is how I see the field and I know it's how many others do too. As a result, conferences are very competitive with sub 20% acceptance rates being common. Written reviews, from independent reviewers, determine what is accepted for publication at a conference or in a Journal and "in the long run reviews have an impact upon other people's professional advancement and careers, and upon progress in the field." [1]

As I understand it, this is different than in other areas of the humanities and science where conference acceptance rates can be very high and "reviewing" conference papers before acceptance is an alien concept. As a result, many fields don't see papers in peer-reviewed conferences as high-quality scholarly articles. Whereas, in computer science, papers in peer-reviewed conferences are accepted as high-quality scholarly articles

It's important here to draw a distinction between conference paper reviewing (which is often a "one shot" and affords the authors little opportunity to refute/address or improve the paper based on the reviews) and journal paper reviewing. The Journal review process is just that, a process, a rejection with reviews can be used to improve and address the comments (factual or otherwise) and the paper can be resubmitted. Indeed, the question of "Choosing a venue: conference or journal?" has been considered by others and is important to consider often and early.  

The central questions as I see them are "how do I write a good review" and also "how do I deal with a review I feel is unfair". Many reviewers put in thankless hours of work in writing detailed and helpful reviews. It's our job as academics to accept and use these reviews to make our work better. We shouldn't just ignore reviews (negative or positive). Many of us have seen the same paper resubmitted to another venue without any of the review comments being addressed. This is frustrating for reviewers and turns the review process, which should improve the work, into a game. I feel we collectively need to push against this (regardless of how unfair/unjust/incorrect/inappropriate we feel the reviews received might be). A unfair review can be addressed in a rebuttal process (such as in CHI) or in a new submission or by making all reviews public. This is of course an area of active discussion.  For example, as Mirco noted the ACM have a document on Rights and Responsibilities in ACM Publishing which looks at the area from a range of viewpoints from author to reviewer to conference chairs and Journal editors.  

Whatever the case, writing a good review is an important skill and here are the thoughts and reflections of others on this topic. 
I'm going to reflect further on this and extend my own thoughts on this here in due course.  

For now, take writing a review as a serious matter, give yourself enough time to read and reflect on the paper(s). I often read the papers quickly when I first get them then a few days/weeks later in more detail. This two phase process is really helpful in keeping my comments and thoughts in scope to the conference/journal. It's also important to help me determine comments on the research done rather than the research I wish they had done. These are not the same thing and I think a lot of people forget this in their role as a reviewer. Saleem suggest that we should always "include references to related work"  in reviews as appropriate, instead of simply alluding to "past work" or "this has been done". It's important to learn to appreciate the reviews we get (and acknowledge them as appropriate) and not simply dismiss them.  

When receiving a review, read it. If your work is accepted, consider the reviews a way to make your paper that much better in the final version so people read, use and cite it! (getting it published is only the first step, making it have impact is another job). If rejected, read the reviews. If there is no rebuttal, wait a few days, then read the reviews again (with your co-authors) and discuss what you can take from the reviews to improve the paper. Break the review down into aspects of style, substance, new work, errors etc. Then decide how to use the review to your benefit. One poor review out of three can be frustrating but three out of three suggests you might be doing something fundamentally wrong in the presentation or experiments etc. Of course this isn't always the case, and there are famous examples of ground breaking papers being rejected as evidence that peer-review doesn't work. We must acknowledge peer-review is a human activity and as such is inherently fallible. 

In summary, if asked to write a review, if you are too busy say no but if you say yes take the time to do it well. When you get reviews, read them, use them and learn what from them what you find useful or things you wish to avoid in your own reviews.  

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Apr 2011: Applications open for Summer School on Multimodal Systems for Digital Tourism

Multimodal Systems for Digital Tourism

SICSA Summer School

St Andrews, Scotland, June 27th - July 1, 2011

Summer School Website:

The focus of this summer school is to introduce a new generation of researchers to the latest research advances in multimodal systems, in the context of applications, services and technologies for tourists (Digital Tourism). Where mobile and desktop applications can rely on eyes down interaction, the tourist aims to keep their eyes up and focussed on the painting, statue, mountain, ski run, castle, loch or other sight before them. In this school we focus on multimodal input and output interfaces, data fusion techniques and hybrid architectures, vision, speech and conversational interfaces, haptic interaction, mobile, tangible and virtual/augmented multimodal UIs, tools and system infrastructure issues for designing interfaces and their evaluation.

We have structured this summer school as a blend of theory and practice. Mornings are devoted to seminars from our international speakers followed by guided group work sessions or focussed time for project development. We are providing a dedicated lab with development machines for the duration of the school along with access to a Diamondtouch, a Microsoft Surface (v1.0), a range of mobile devices, arduinos, phidget kits, pico-projectors, Kinects and haptic displays. As we expect participants from a range of backgrounds to attend we will form groups who will, through a guided process, propose a demonstrator they can realise during the summer school which they will demonstrate and showcase on the final day.

In addition, Ben Arent a leading interaction designer based in Dublin has agreed to host (subject to sufficient interest) a day long Arduino workshop for interested participants on Sunday June 26th.

Seminar Topics

  • Multimodal Interaction for Digital Tourism
  • Multimodal Interaction with the Android platform
  • Creating Engaging Visitor Experiences in Museums and Heritage sites
  • Multimodal Interaction with spatial data
  • Speech-driven, hands-free, eyes-free navigation
  • Haptic Tabletop Interaction for Digital Tourism
  • Natural language generation for Multimodal Interaction
  • Mobility as a challenge for interaction design, Tourism as a special case
  • Multimodal Augmented-Reality Interaction for Digital Tourism
  • Designing context aware-systems
  • Stephen Brewster, University of Glasgow
  • Tristan Henderson, University of St Andrews
  • Eva Hornecker, University of Strathclyde
  • Antonio Krüger, Saarland University
  • William Mackaness, University of Edinburgh
  • Miguel Nacenta, University of Calgary
  • Jon Oberlander, University of Edinburgh
  • Antti Oulasvirta, Helsinki Institute for Information Technology
  • Aaron Quigley, University of St Andrews
  • Albrecht Schmidt, University of Stuttgart
The deadline for applications to attend is May 3rd, with notifications by May 9th. Participation is limited to 30 and we expect a mix of both national and international participants. The registration fee is £450, which covers four nights of accommodation (Mon - Fri) in St Andrews, breakfast, lunch, dinner and summer school materials. Also included is a welcome reception and farewell dinner. An optional Arduino workshop (with Sunday night accommodation) is an additional £70.

The Scottish Informatics and Computer Science Alliance (SICSA) is providing 16 grants to cover the £450 registration fee for PhD students from most Scottish Universities. See SICSA website for details:

See the summer school website for a full programme, biographies of speakers and full details for applications:

The school is directed by Aaron Quigley (University of St Andrews), Eva Hornecker (University of Strathclyde), Jon Oberlander (University of Edinburgh) and Stephen Brewster (University of Glasgow).