Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› acm-sigaccess-conference-on-computers-and-accessibility
acm-sigaccess-conference-on-computers-and-accessibility
GitHub针对ACM SIGACCESS ASSETS会议的投稿适配与定位工具。用于评估论文契合度、重构叙事框架、检查证据链及匿名规范，识别拒稿风险，辅助作者将稿件调整为符合该无障碍计算领域顶会的评审标准。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定ASSETS为目标会议
需评估无障碍计算类手稿的会议适配性
需将期刊或arXiv风格稿件重构为CS会议叙事
需要诊断证据缺口、匿名性或反论策略
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acm-sigaccess-conference-on-computers-and-accessibility -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "acm-sigaccess-conference-on-computers-and-accessibility",
"description": "Use when targeting ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for accessibility."
}
ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS)
Conference positioning
ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) is a top computer-science conference venue for accessible computing, assistive technology, disability studies, inclusive design, and user-centered evaluation. It rewards an accessibility paper with community-grounded framing and ethically designed evaluation. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
- The author names ASSETS / ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility as the target venue.
- A manuscript in accessible computing needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: accessible computing, assistive technology, disability studies, inclusive design, and user-centered evaluation.
- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
- The paper should explain why the result matters to ASSETS's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
- Reviewer lens: Treat ASSETS as a accessibility venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: accessible computing, assistive technology, disability studies, inclusive design, and user-centered evaluation.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: accessible, computing, assistive, technology, disability, studies, inclusive, design, user-centered, evaluation, venue-specific, contribution, accessibility, assets.
- Official anchor domain: assets.acm.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in accessibility and the author can say why ASSETS reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
acm-international-conference-on- mobile-human-computer-interaction(MobileHCI),acm-international-conference-on-tangible- embedded-and-embodied-interaction(TEI),acm-symposium-on-virtual-reality-software-and- technology(VRST). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from assets.acm.org.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What ASSETS is. The ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility — assistive technology and computing for people with disabilities.
- vs TEI. TEI is about tangible/embodied interaction generally; bring accessibility-centered work here regardless of modality.
- vs UbiComp/CHI. UbiComp is pervasive/sensing and CHI the broad HCI flagship; ASSETS is defined by its accessibility community and review lens, not by technique.
SIGACCESS-specific routing detail
- Prefer SIGACCESS when disability, accessibility, assistive technology, inclusive design, or access barriers are the research object rather than an incidental user group.
- Route tangible artifacts to TEI and pervasive sensing deployments to UbiComp unless the primary contribution is an accessibility outcome, participatory process, or disability-centered system.
- SIGACCESS evidence should make access needs, participant/community involvement, evaluation ethics, accommodation context, and limitations for disabled users explicit.
Method & evidence bar
- Match the contribution type to the evidence: controlled study, field deployment, design inquiry, technical system, dataset, or theory.
- Report participants, recruitment, analysis method, consent/ethics, and limitations with enough detail for HCI review.
- For AI-infused interfaces, evaluate both model behavior and user experience; either alone is usually insufficient.
- For ASSETS, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: an accessibility paper with community-grounded framing and ethically designed evaluation.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Explain who benefits, what interaction changes, and what design knowledge the paper contributes.
- Avoid treating users as a decoration for a technical system; the human evidence has to shape the claim.
- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://assets.acm.org/
- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
- Confirm the review workflow and portal: the current ACM PCS/Precision Conference author guide and contribution-type policy.
- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at ASSETS, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
- The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
- Related work includes the nearest current-cycle accessibility papers and explains the technical delta.
- The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
- The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Underpowered or poorly matched user study for an ambitious design claim.
- Novel interface demo without contribution to interaction knowledge.
- Ethics, accessibility, or community context handled superficially.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving ASSETS reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses ASSETS's bar, compare against acm-chi-conference-on-human-factors-in-computing-systems / acm-symposium-on-user-interface-software-and-technology / acm-conference-on-computer-supported-cooperative-work-and-social-computing / acm-conference-on-intelligent-user-interfaces. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:40
