[CREATE] Create resources stuff

[Camille Bissuel]

Hi all,

this discussion sounds like the one on the "libregraphics dot org" one ;)
I like the idea by the way.

In my memory, Jon Nordby had reserved a suitable similar domain last year
for this.
Maybe the Alexandre Prodoukine's http://libregraphicsworld.org/ or the
a.l.e.'s http://www.freegraphicdesigner.org/<http://freegraphicsdesigner.org>are
suitable if they agree.

Why not start to use one of thoses now, with "resources dot
oneofthosedomains dot org" ?
http://create.freedesktop.org/resources/ is ok too if we have nothing else.

Jon, Alexandre, a.l.e., what do you think ?

Cheers,
Camille



2011/6/19 Gregory Pittman <gpittman at iglou.com>

> On 06/19/2011 11:16 AM, Yuval Levy wrote:
>
>> On June 19, 2011 10:55:17 AM a.l.e wrote:
>>
>>> just one question: do the create folk really like that "stuff" thing for
>>> resources?
>>>
>> I can't answer for others and there is no poll known to me to answer the
>> question.  I can answer for myself...
>>
>>  i'm no english native speaker, so i'm not sure i'm the best person to
>>> judge, but me don't like it.
>>>
>> ... and you can (and should!) too.  Everybody's opinions are welcome.  No
>> need
>> to be a native speaker.  In fact the perspective of non-native speaker is
>> more
>> important simply because there are more non-native speakers than native
>> speakers and this is not about getting things correct from a
>> grammar/sytanx
>> point of view, but form how it sounds and feels and types for everybody.
>>
>> I am no native speaker.
>>
>> My own personal opinion about the few words that have been floating the
>> room
>> for quite some time, in no particular order:
>> * stuff:  I dislike it.  It's as generic as "thing" and won't yeild useful
>> search engine results.
>> * LGM:  I dislike acronyms.  They require insider knowledge and are thus
>> difficult to memorize, and are ambigous to different sets of insiders and
>> by
>> extensions to search engines.  No good to communicate to the outside
>> world.
>> * create:  nice but too generic / ambiguous.  while it expresses what we
>> do,
>> there is little chance that we can pump into it enough power to make it
>> stand
>> on its own.
>> * freedesktop: wrong context
>> * free / libre: relevant in a different context.  too broad to define "us"
>> (we
>> are only a small part of the free / libre movement) and too narrow to
>> define
>> "us" as well (libre graphics is just a part of the graphics universe)
>> * graphics / graphicsworld: is what come nearest to what I like, but still
>> a
>> little bit too generic (for search engines and for mnemonics).  Plus, some
>> of
>> us create multimedia, which covers also the time dimension and a broader
>> space
>> that includes also the 20Hz-20KHz band and not only the "visible window"
>> in
>> the 400–790THz band.  And creativity goes beyond audio and video - there
>> is
>> also text and surrogates like braille; and there is the physical
>> creativity
>> with clay and other materials, rapid prototyping (3D-printers) etc.
>>
>> So maybe a definition in terms of *purpose*.  What are we creating for?
>>  Is it
>> a form of communication?  exchange?  self-gratification?  all or none of
>> the
>> above?
>>
>> Of course it is always easier to criticize than to propose alternatives,
>> so
>> please don't take the above as diminishing any of the terms mentioned.  If
>> I
>> had thought a better term, I would have proposed it long ago.  I can live
>> with
>> the status quo of a cacophony of terms and duplication of resources until
>> a
>> superior term emerges from it by its sheer intrinsic power.  In many parts
>> of
>> the world a photo camera is called a "Kodak"; adhesive tape is called
>> "Scotch"; and a refirgerator is called a "Frigidaire" - the intrinsic
>> power of
>> these terms have transcended their artificially created brands (when
>> effort
>> needs to be put into a term to etch it in the collective language) to
>> establish themselves as common words (carried by their own intrinsic
>> power).
>> In more recent time, Google is one of those terms.  One day we'll find our
>> term and we'll know it just because it will become apparent.  Until then,
>> keep
>> creating, keep trying, and just because you invented an incumbent term
>> that is
>> being "attacked" by a new term, don't be defensive about it.
>>
> I think you've touched on a number of legitimate complaints about these
> various terms. As you say yourself, complaints are not solutions, so I think
> in general until someone can come up with better alternatives his/her
> complaints are not likely to get much traction.
>
> I used to have a similar reaction to 'create', but now I think it's pretty
> good, and allows for shifting directions of interest, incorporation of new
> things and ideas. I do agree about 'stuff' being troublesome, even before
> considering the issues non-native English speakers face.
>
> We do have to be mindful of how much various search functions are used to
> locate things, so it may be that somewhere attached to pages associated with
> 'create' there needs to be some associated terms that help the site be found
> when searching for create site content. So in general, when some generic
> term like 'create', like 'stuff' gets used, how does it get embellished with
> some additional terms to help focus those of us when we come looking for it?
>
> Greg
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> CREATE mailing list
> CREATE at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/**mailman/listinfo/create<http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/create/attachments/20110619/918c17db/attachment.htm>