After hacking ends all teams will expo their projects. Here judges and fellow students will have time to test each other's projects. The expo will be at your tables where you have worked throughout the weekend.
Each team will be visited once by our three knowledgeable judges within a time interval of 3 hours. As soon as all groups and their cases have been registered, a plan for when you will be visited by the judges will be made public. Thus you will have some time to eat lunch and watch other hacks when the judges are not at your table. But be sure to be at your table a little before it says on the plan!

Best Hack Criteria

Technical Difficulty

How technically impressive was the hack? Was the technical problem the team tackled difficult? Did it use a particularly clever technique or did it use many different components? Did the technology involved make you go "Wow"?


Was the hack unique and interesting? Is it something that has never been seen before? This can range from a new spin on a known idea to completely outlandish ideas.


Did the hack both look and work beautifully? Have all bugs been squashed? The closer it looks and feels to a professional-grade application, the better.


Was the hack useful? Was it intuitive and easy to use? Doesn't have to be business-ready, but should have the potential to be useful in everyday life.

Bonus: Learning

Did the team stretch themselves? Did they try to learn something new? What kind of projects have they worked on before? If a team which always does virtual reality projects switch up and try doing a mobile app instead, that exploration should be rewarded.

Facepalm Criteria


The hack or the idea behind it should be unique and interesting. This can range from new and crazy spins on known ideas to completely outlandish ideas.


The hack is obviously a testament to what the human mind can do to make something funny, be it a genius pun or something that just makes you laugh.


The hack doesn't have to be useful or meaningful in any sense.


Eve Hoggan

Eve Hoggan

Eve has been an Associate Professor at the Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University since 2016. As a Human-Computer Interaction researcher, her focus is on creating novel interaction techniques and multimodal feedback. Some of her most recent research has focused on haptic feedback, feedback techniques in VR, and multimodal collaborative systems.

"I'm looking forward to judging all the different projects at AUHack. I thoroughly enjoy seeing the creative, challenging, and exciting work that can be done in just 36 hours!" -Eve

Rune Heick

Rune Heick

Rune is a Hardware & Software engineer from Aarhus University. As part of the OrbitLab team, Rune assists with development and best-practice within hardware and software solutions, for use in research and education. A particular focus of his has been on IoT platforms and battery-powered devices. In addition to having been involved in a number of startups, he has as a consultant helped many companies and startups with prototype development and bringing products to production.

Minna Pakanen

Minna Pakanen

Minna is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication and Culture Department of Digital Design and Information Studies at Aarhus University. Her research focuses on the design of wearables and next-to-body technology for self- and shared-management of individuals' health and wellbeing as well as on the understanding of user's needs for and experiences with the designed technology. She also works on interaction design and understanding user experiences with augmented and virtual reality technology.

She agreed to judge AUHack 2023 because she is interested to see what kind of creative and cool outcomes the teams are able to produce with such limited design and implementation time!

Evaluation Plan

Trifork Case

Evaluation numberGroup numberGroup nameEvaluation startEvaluation end
1Group 4DJ Productions +111:2011:24
2Group 5The Digital Dames11:2411:28
3Group 6Potty Potty11:2811:32
4Group 8IT og produktion11:3211:36
5Group 10Glidebane11:3611:40
6Group 16GR1611:4011:44
7Group 26Theas Tæsketøsser11:4411:48
8Group 31Code copeiuhm11:4811:52
9Group 34TRI4K11:5211:56
10Group 38Hacker-Lømlerne11:5612:00

Grundfos Case

Evaluation numberGroup numberGroup nameEvaluation startEvaluation end
11Group 2!Best12:1612:20
12Group 3AU Analytica12:2012:24
13Group 12Databanden12:2412:28
14Group 19NMA PowerHacks12:2812:32
15Group 20HiveMind12:3212:36

InCommodities Case

Evaluation numberGroup numberGroup nameEvaluation startEvaluation end
16Group 7DROPTABLE users12:3612:40
17Group 9Team F12:4012:44
18Group 18OkayIPullUp12:4412:48
19Group 22And now for the weather12:4812:52
20Group 27Duck Hunters12:5212:56
21Group 40mystaGOGical12:5613:00

Rogue Case

Evaluation numberGroup numberGroup nameEvaluation startEvaluation end
22Group 1Østjyllands Storkreds13:2013:24
23Group 15Luigis La Casa de La Tires13:2413:28
24Group 17BadAtNaming13:2813:32
25Group 24Trolle Hombres13:3213:36
26Group 28XNOR-LAX13:3613:40
27Group 33RPGPT13:4013:44
28Group 37SCHID-KIDS13:4413:48
29Group 39Peak Web Dev13:4813:52