On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, William Pietri <will...@scissor.com>wrote:
> That did cross my mind, and it was tempting. But practically, many busy > journalists, causal readers, and novice editors may base a lot of their > initial reaction on the name alone, or on related language in the > interface. By choosing an arbitrary name, some fraction of people will > dig deeper, but another fraction will just retain their perplexity > and/or alienation. This is a really good point, and brings up another point for everyone to consider. If the name is not *immediately* evocative of something to the casual reader, it might as well be called the "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch". It will be a blank slate as far as journalists and the world at large is concerned. I think we're better off with a term that gets us in the ballpark with little or no mental energy than we are picking something that has clinical precision, but takes more than a few milliseconds of consideration to get the the gist. Rob _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
