# acmart: Shared Author Affiliation [closed]

ACM recently (December 2016) changed their SIG format for conferences. In the old sig-alt format, we could do shared affiliations using

\newcommand{\sharedaffiliation}[0]{
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c}}


then in the author block

 \sharedaffiliation
}


This led to two new lines, centered, below the author blocks with the two lines given. This is basically summed up in Shared author affiliation in ACM Sig-proc .

In the new acmart, the acmart.dtx file says to do shared affiliations by putting in a single affiliation block:

\author{...}
\email{...}
\author{...}
\email{...}
\affiliation{...}


However, when I do this, it lines up all of the authors, then all the e-mails, and finally the affiliation in a single column. Does anyone know how to get the previous behavior (as shown in the shared affiliation for sig-alt post)?

BTW, I've tried injecting empty affiliation blocks after each \author and another one after all of the author's info has been specified. This gets me all authors formatted horizontally, but the extra affiliation is shown under the last author rather than as a new line centered under all authors.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

## closed as off-topic by Sebastiano, Troy, Bobyandbob, Stefan Pinnow, TeXnicianJun 4 '18 at 5:12

• This question does not fall within the scope of TeX, LaTeX or related typesetting systems as defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• In the first place: Why do you want to change this behaviour? If it is a submission to an ACM event, then please follow the instructions of ACM. It is up to the editors/publisher to set up formatting guidelines. If you use the style privately, then use the old style, or another one that does what you want. If after re-considering this you still want to change acmart, please post a small complete (=compiling) document showing how you use the style file (the chosen options have a significant influence on the output!). – gernot Jan 3 '17 at 11:41
• I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it was solved in the comment. – Sebastiano Jun 3 '18 at 21:39