On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Lanphier <ro...@robla.net> wrote: > 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.
I support "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
