🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7324@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU
(Ittai Hershman) writes:

>> The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased.  I agree
>> comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a
>> working title for the group. 
>
>The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup
>with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as
>needed.  Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way
>as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value).
>
>There already is a rec.video -- I think comp.video will end up getting
>a lot of misdirected posts about video in general.  Besides, what
>about other multimedia technologies besides full-motion video?  

We have been struggling with this same problem here as an area of
research is emerging, and management wants to know what to call it.

One of the terms we have been using is "new media", which has its
problems but seems to do the job.  "New media" literally is media that
is new.  In practice it can be multi-media where a single media has
been dominant in the past (e.g., graphics, sound, video in the computer
field), or it can be interactivity where one-way communication was the
past mode of operation (e.g., interactive video in the television
field).  

What we are describing here is seen differently depending on what
perspective you are coming from (e.g., computers or television).  Thus,
finding a label for it will be difficult.  What about "comp.new-media"?




-- 
Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA
               andrew@calvin.doc.CA    andrew@doccrc.BITNET
        HDTV:  higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen,
            "sit-com" reruns.  What's wrong with this picture?