« Back to Summary
Do you have any suggestions for improving CMT that we should pass on to its developers?
#Response DateResponse Text
1Jun 10, 2010 7:14 PMReviewer assignment should be easier - needs to be easier to get list of reviewers. At the moment involves many clicks. The use of the term "not willing" should be removed. As an area chair this implied I ought not assign a paper to someone I knew to be a good fit, because they had said they were "not willing" to review it. There must be a better term that would make such an assignment less awkward.
2Jun 10, 2010 11:11 PMI found the interface awkward in many places, because (a) there was some next step to do and it was buried or (b) because the information needed wasn't presented coherently.
3Jun 11, 2010 2:35 AMinviting reviewers was difficult, just like assigning reviewers to papers. in general, the system was quite slow, in some case loading long lists of names that could be avoided. (I forgot most of the issues, and the specifics, but there were definitely issues). Also, I am using Firefox and some functionality did not work on it.
4Jun 11, 2010 1:09 PMAlthough this may be a hardware issue, the system is far too slow to be acceptable - the user has to wait for very long periods after entering information. The user interface does not very well support the natural work-flow of a reviewer/area chair.
5Jun 11, 2010 1:11 PMDirect access to papers and their reviews, better reviewer assignment procedure, "save" isn't always clear: to which entry does it refer? Has the decision been saved or not?
6Jun 11, 2010 2:21 PMThe user interface could be improved further. Many links to click on, not always obvious where to find information, annoying pop-up windows that suddenly disappear because the mouse pointer accidentally went out of the window when you moved to a link to click on it, ... It's been improving over the years but it's still by far the worst interface among all the conference systems I've used in the past.
7Jun 14, 2010 10:12 AMCMT is great for PC chairs, but can be a bit unwieldy and slow for reviewers and ACs. Not sure how the developers could mitigate this -- at least the ICML'10 PC chairs did a good job of explaining on the main pages what needed to or could be done on that page.