Hi all, At Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:20:15 -0500, John J Foerch wrote: > > So here are my requests to all who are brainstorming for new > names: > > * no stupid puns > Yes, they always sound a bit amateurish. And make it difficult to *talk* about a piece of software because you feel self-conscious saying the name; you feel as though every time you mention it you also need to explain (or excuse) it.
> > I also have a strong preference against acronyms, because they > are annoying to read. > Agreed. Some acronyms become sufficiently well known to take on the status of words in their own right eventually (such as Emacs). But that takes years. I really liked 'Mash's suggestion of "Aesculus" (in that capitalisation). It's good for googling as it only has one other meaning. It sounds sort of trendy and cool. It's a name that you can imagine saying to a colleague without feeling self-conscious. Two to four syllables is generally optimal for names of things. Unless the consonants are very pronounced, one syllable names are more difficult to make clear in speech. And five or more syllables is a bit of a mouthful. The 'c' has potential for being rendered as a conker in a logo. Best, Richard -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard Lewis ISMS, Computing Goldsmiths, University of London Tel: +44 (0)20 7078 5134 Skype: richardjlewis JID: [email protected] http://www.richard-lewis.me.uk/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- +-------------------------------------------------------+ |Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.| |http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html | +-------------------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
