uist-camera-ready

UIST Camera-Ready

A UIST acceptance is conditional: the June 27 notification (2026 cycle, verified

2026-07-08) accepts the paper as amended by your rebuttal, and the July 24

camera-ready is where those amendments come due. This phase has three workstreams —

the contractual edits, the ACM production pipeline with its accessibility

requirements, and conference logistics — and they share four weeks.

Workstream 1: deliver the contract

Reconstruct the promise ledger from your rebuttal (see uist-author-response) and

the meta-review or condition list in the notification:

• Make each promised change where you said you would make it, and keep a diff-notes

file mapping promise → location — useful if the process asks anyone to verify

conditions, and essential when six co-authors edit in parallel.

• The growth budget is +10%: one extra page for standard papers, half a page for

short papers (2026 numbers). Promised additions get the space first; new

camera-ready ambitions get what remains.

• Do not silently make substantive changes nobody asked for; a camera-ready is a

fulfillment step, not a second revision cycle.

Workstream 2: production and accessibility

Camera-ready flows through ACM TAPS (source upload, not just a PDF), and the

2026 guide adds accessible-PDF tagging via APTARA. The author-side accessibility

obligations are concrete:

| Item | 2026 requirement |

|---|---|

| Alt text | Required for every figure, subfigure, and table |

| Tables | Real table markup, not images of tables |

| Math | Source-level math, not equation screenshots |

| Video | Final video figure with captions |

| PDF tagging | Applied in the TAPS/APTARA workflow from your source |

Writing alt text for an interface-systems paper is its own small craft: describe

the interaction state the figure evidences, not the pixels. "Annotated sequence:

a finger drags on the forearm and the cursor traces the same path on the watch,

0.3 s later" beats "screenshot of the system."

Alt-text pass over the figure inventory:
  [ ] every \includegraphics has \Description{...}
  [ ] every subfigure has its own description
  [ ] tables described (what varies across rows/columns, the takeaway)
  [ ] teaser figure description states the core interaction
  [ ] no description says "image of" / "figure showing" boilerplate

Workstream 3: de-anonymize and finalize assets

• Restore authors, affiliations, acknowledgements, and grant numbers; flip the

acmart options from the review/anonymous configuration to the final one per the

current guide.

• Reverse the third-person self-citation contortions where they now read oddly —

but only where the meaning improves.

• Restore real repository and project-page URLs, and make them live before the

proceedings do (see uist-artifact-evaluation for what should be at the other

end).

• Produce the final video figure: captioned, de-anonymized, credits added; check

the current guide for any preview-video obligation (待核实 for 2026).

• Complete ACM e-rights before TAPS will process; the open-access terms applying to

UIST 2026 authors were not verifiable at check time (待核实) — read the e-rights

form, not folklore.

TAPS realities

TAPS consumes source (LaTeX or Word), not a hand-tuned PDF, which surprises teams

whose submission compiled through local hacks:

• Custom macros, non-standard packages, and manual float surgery that survived

review can fail TAPS validation; budget one full rebuild-from-clean-template

day.

• Figures need production-quality originals (vector where possible); the

screenshot that looked fine at review DPI may not at publication.

• The \Description{} commands are part of the source, so the alt-text pass

happens in LaTeX, not in a PDF editor afterward.

• Validate early: upload a candidate build the week the system opens rather than

on the deadline, because TAPS error messages arrive on production timelines,

not chat timelines.

• Keep the review PDF and the camera-ready in the same repository with a tagged

divergence point; the "which version did we promise that in" question recurs

for years.

Four-week schedule (notification June 27 → deadline July 24, 2026)

| Week | Deliverable |

|---|---|

| 1 | Promise ledger reconstructed; edits assigned; e-rights initiated; registration/visa checks started |

| 2 | All contractual edits merged; +10% budget reconciled; figure originals collected |

| 3 | Alt-text pass; TAPS candidate upload; validation errors cleared |

| 4 | Final video captioned and uploaded; last TAPS build verified; buffer only |

Conference logistics start now

• Registration and the presenting author: confirm the current in-person requirement

wording (待核实 for 2026) as soon as notification lands — visas for a US venue

(Detroit, November 2-5, 2026) can take longer than the camera-ready window.

• UIST talks are short and demo-culture shaped: build the talk around the live or

recorded demonstration, not around related-work slides.

• Plan the hallway demo: papers whose systems can be demonstrated at the conference

compound their impact; shipping hardware to a venue takes lead time (and consider

a Demos-track submission for the same system where the rules allow).

Output format

[Contract status] promises delivered <k>/<n>; open items with owners
[Page budget] final length vs +10% allowance
[TAPS status] source uploaded / validation errors / complete
[Accessibility] alt-text pass done? tables/math as markup? video captioned?
[Logistics] e-rights · registration · visa · demo shipping — each with a date