🚀 go-pugleaf

> I still have to object strongly to comp.multimedia.  Multimedia is almost 
> useless as a descriptive word.  I went to a multimedia art show recently, 
> that featured art, for example, of papier-mache, gouache, and acrylic.  I 
> have attended multimedia lectures with three slide projectors and a 
> tape player.  I have seen a multimedia tutorial that I just sat and watched 
> after pressing the Enter key.  

First.  According to the Usenet guidelines (and reiterated in my
proposal) discussions take place in the newsgroup news.groups.

Second.  I have received a pile of e-mail responses which have been
favorable to comp.multimedia both the group and the name (including
one from Kathy Strong whom you mention by name).  And most of the
traffic to news.groups is favorable.

Third, I volunteered to do this because I think its important that
we have a proper forum in which to discuss this stuff.  This is not
what I get paid to do.  It takes two plus months to get a newsgroup
going, and I am willing to go through that process.  I really think
that we should devote our energies to making the newsgroup a success
rather than quibbling about the name.

Finally, here is a summary of why comp.multimedia is the best name:

1. As has been pointed out by a number of people, rec.multimedia
   would be the right place for slide-show type multimedia.  Because
   comp.multimedia is in the comp group, it is pretty obvious that
   interactive multimedia is being discussed.

2. The press calls this stuff "multimedia" (from the NY Times and
   Wall Street Journal to Computerworld, PC Week, Datamation etc.).

3. The industry calls it "multimedia" -- not just Apple, but IBM,
   Microsoft, Digital, Sun and HP.

4. Even if it were a lousy term, most Usenet participants are most
   likely to find it under this name.

5. Even USENIX is calling this stuff "multimedia".  I just received
   the Call for Papers for the Usenix Summer 1991 conference in the
   US mail this morning.  Guess what its called:

	"MULTIMEDIA - FOR NOW AND THE FUTURE"

   And I see no mention of multimedia slide shows as being an
   appropriate topic for discussion at that forum.  In fact, they
   outline the same basic things I did in my proposal -- "systems
   integrating voice, video, audio, touch, or music".  I imagine an
   online version will be posted to comp.org.usenix soon.

Enough?  I think so.  Let's get the show on the road, folks, and
start discussing content rather than nomenclature.

-Ittai