Evaluation Results:

I: Papers
II: Hot3D Session
III: Proceedings
IV: Meeting Room and AV
V: Publicity
VI: Web Page
VII: Workshop Organization
VIII: Review Process
IX: Banquet
X: Lunch and Breaks

The following charts show the average results as well as the number of absolute
votes given for each category (click to enlarge):

Comments to I (Papers)
  • Better than usual.
  • Great selection.
  • Most papers are using graphics hardware, not about hardware itself.
Comments to II (Hot3D)
  • GF4 is old HW. All info on the web long ago.
  • Worse than 2 years ago.
  • We want demos! Don't let sponsors show their old marketing slides.
  • Competitive issues limit how much information is provided.
  • Please always get ATI / Nvidia to present here. I really enjoyed having those guys at the conference.
Comments to III (Proceedings)
  • Colors would be nice.
  • Terrible cover ! Please put images !
  • Great layout, but many technical/font issues - need to standardize better.
  • Some printing problems could have been found from proofing.
  • Glossy pape, much better than before. Put bigger + more pictures on the cover. Like LaTex style but fix size.
  • Liked the old ACM format a *lot* better. There were more images on the cover (who cares about the EG logo anyways ?). And who came up with that color scheme for the covers ? This is another case of EG fixing something that wasn't broken.
Comments to IV (Meeting Room and AV)
  • Very well done -- good size and big screen.
Comments to V (Publicity)
  • No comments.
Comments to VI (Web Page)
  • Good, would prefer venu and program info a litter farther in advance, but info very helpful ! Good Job.
  • Updates were too late.
  • Please update earlier.
  • Bus schedules were weird/incorrect ? Could not decipher.
Comments to VII (Organization)
  • Enough time to meet people.
  • Good scheduling.
Comments to VIII (Review Process)
  • I appreciate the comments; I do think we should cycle through the reviewing committee a bit more, though.
  • Outcome was delayed a couple of days.
  • Seemed fine to me, but please put results out when say you will, many days late.
Comments to IX (Banquet)
  • An extra trip, like in Interlaken 2000, would be a nice bonus, but certainly not a must.
  • Cool place, but really lasted a little too long (jet lag) perhaps have earlier bus back ?
  • Really great !
Comments to X (Lunch and Breaks)
  • Provide coffee at all times (esp. in the morning)
  • Just right !
  • Good snacks - good use of picking up time slack
Further comments, suggestions, and questions
  • Suggestions for new HW architectures (not just doing with HW) would be interesting - those are rarely seen elsewhere. Doing things with existing HW is OK, but I would like to hear more ideas that propose small additions/modifications to the current HW in order to do something really cool.
  • Brings together industry (ATI, Nvidia, Matrox etc) and academics. Small enough to meet everybody. Give preference to graphics hardware proposals/implementations, but include applications of graphics hardware.
  • Get John Carmack as a keynote speaker.
  • Invite people from those areas to come share their perspective. This is an academic conference, but other views from outside are nice.
  • Good job. I liked this, please find a way to fix the proceedings; maybe submit Postscript?
  • Concentrate on hardware itself, how it works, the algorithms etc. Less on things like shading, that's for programmers.
  • Next time there could be a "Hot wireless device graphics acceleration" track for graphics hardware built for handheld devices. Our company will contribute to that!
  • Perhaps in addition to doing Hot3D you should have a "3D Hardware Features Sketches" where ideas for hardware features could be brought forward and discussed without the effort and rigor or a paper.
  • It is frustrating that information can't flow from the 3D graphics companies. Perhaps at least the information could flow the other way.
  • An exchange of requirements from (game) application developers to us, and ideas about future h/w from us to (game) developers might benefit both parties. So maybe an "applications" track would bring both parties closer together. Game developers could show where their problems with current h/w lie, and how they've been able to coax their game effects from the hardware.
  • Keep a very high standard in the reviewing process and produce excellent proceedings.
  • Don't forget the *hardware* !
  • Focusing on design and low-level applications of graphics hardware.
  • Tutorials.
  • Splitting the best-paper award in an application and a design of hardware award.
  • I think it presents a unique opportunity to seize an increasingly important position. Stick to subjects you have in the past -- hardware design, implementation ,a nd doing cool things with h/w.
  • Perhaps get in touch with developer relations at graphics hardware companies to solicit papers/speakers ?
  • Continue making it attractive to graphics hardware researchers. Emphasize the *research* aspect of this workshop over the games and console conferences. Emphasize how research presented here has influenced the industry in the past!
  • Better information distribution to presenters beforehand.

Thanks for all the valuable feedback and looking forward seeing you again next year.