International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI)

Conference positioning

International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI) is a top computer-science conference venue for visual interaction, information interfaces, interactive visualization, multimodal interfaces, and design tools. It rewards a visual-interface paper with interface novelty and concrete user or task evidence. 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 AVI / International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces as the target venue.
• A manuscript in visual interaction 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: visual interaction, information interfaces, interactive visualization, multimodal interfaces, and design tools.
• 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 AVI'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 AVI as a visual interfaces 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: visual interaction, information interfaces, interactive visualization, multimodal interfaces, and design tools.
• Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: visual, interaction, information, interfaces, interactive, visualization, multimodal, design, tools, venue-specific, contribution, avi-conference.
• Official anchor domain: avi-conference.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.

Close-neighbor routing guardrail

• Route to AVI when the contribution is a visual interface, interaction technique, or interface evaluation rather than visualization theory alone.
• Compare EuroVis/IEEE VIS for visualization research, CHI/UIST for broader HCI/UI systems, and IUI when intelligent interface behavior is the central claim.

AVI-specific routing detail

• Prefer AVI when the contribution is an advanced visual interface: interaction technique, visual UI system, multimodal interface, information display, or user-facing visual interaction.
• Route visualization analysis methods to EuroVis/IEEE VIS, graphics algorithms to graphics venues, and broad HCI studies to CHI/UIST when interface novelty is not the center.
• AVI evidence should connect interface design, implementation, user task, interaction measures, and visual communication constraints.

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 AVI, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a visual-interface paper with interface novelty and concrete user or task evidence.
• 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://avi-conference.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: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
• 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 AVI, 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 visual interfaces 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 AVI reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.

Re-routing decision

If the paper misses AVI'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] International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI)
[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>