well said, +1 On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:54 PM, ricardo lafuente <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 05/31/2010 03:07 PM, a.l.e wrote: > > - it may not be easy to get create.org > > > > yes, create is a great name, but we need the domain name attached to it! > > Just a side note for the discussion: the domain issue need not be a > dealbreaker when discussing the name of the project. Of course, having > create.org would be fab, but createfoundation dot org, or even > creategraphicsassociation.org (note: exaggeration) doesn't seem that > confusing or hard to type. > > As a snarky example, 0100101110101101.org is an artist collective whose > absolutely unmemorizable domain name didn't keep them and their website > from getting popular and famous. Obviously it's good to have a simple and > clear url, but the actual relevance of the project will be a much bigger > driver of pageviews than a 6-letter domain name. > > Finally, i did read somewhere that most people seem to look for a site by > googling its name (or even its url! the horror) -- most of the > less-than-geeky people i know do this. So again, it's relevance that > should be the priority for the project and its website in order for it to > be known. > > Other than that, +1 to Create Foundation/Association/*. It's a very good > (and catchy) name, with enough identity to be associated with graphics but > vague enough to give some leeway to future broadening of the project's > scope. And it avoids the usual pitfalls of arguments around 'free' vs. > 'libre', or 'graphics' vs. 'art' vs. 'design'. > > Cheerio, > :r > > _______________________________________________ > CREATE mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create >
_______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
