ittai@shemesh.gba.nyu.edu (Ittai Hershman) (11/26/90)
Proposal: The creation of a newsgroup called "comp.multimedia"
to discuss interactive multimedia technologies and
applications: systems which combine text, graphic images,
animation, sound, and/or video, with computer technology.
The newsgroup would promote discussion of relevant
technologies (e.g. DVI, CD-I, CD ROM, videodisc)
applications and methodologies.
Rationale: At present there is no newsgroup which addresses
"multimedia" technology and applications per se.
There are three groups which discuss specialized
aspects: comp.mail.multi-media, comp.ivideodisc
and comp.cog-eng. None, however, is regarded as
a focal point for "multimedia" and all suffer from
crossposts as a result.
"Multimedia" is a group of technologies with a lot
of momentum, in the same way that "AI" and "groupware"
have been before. As these technologies and their
applications mature, traffic may dictate the formation
of subgroups (like: comp.multimedia.interactive,
comp.multimedia.desktop, comp.multimedia.dvi, etc.).
At the moment, however, one forum with one unified name
would be best in my opinion.
Naming: Ten days ago I floated the idea for "comp.multimedia" on
the comp.ivideodisc newsgroup. The reaction was positive,
but a number of people voiced dissatisfaction with the
term "multimedia". One person typified the naming problem
when he stated: "The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty
much debased." Alternatives such as "polymedia" and
"new-media" were suggested.
My response to these concerns is that whether we like it or
not the term "multimedia" has stuck to this stuff. I
suggest its use in the title simply because it is the term
which most people associate with the topic and is therefore
most likely to attract those who are interested.
I hope we do not spend the next month -- the alotted time
for discussion before a vote, arguing about neologisms.
Unless this gets bogged down in hopeless disagreement (which I hope
does not occur), I will continue the process with a "call for vote" on
December 15th. I ask all interested parties to voice an opinion on
news.groups in response to this message (preferably positive :-) and
to vote accordingly (via e-mail) in response to the "call for vote" on
December 15th.
Ittai Hershman
Associate Director of Academic Computing
NYU Stern School of Businesstaylorj@yvax.byu.edu (11/30/90)
I agree completely that there needs to be a group (or groups) addressing multimedia, and that the current group (comp.ivideodisc) is inappropriately named. I also agree with posters who feel that comp.video would be confused with rec.video. Never underestimate the stupidity of net users. I also agree (I'm a very agreeable person :-) that in spite of the problem with the name, a "comp.video" group would be useful for those using computers for video production or desktop video but not for interactive multimedia. Therefore, I suggest a naming scheme something like the following: A base name of "comp.media" with group names such as comp.media.video or comp.media. comp.media.multimedia or comp.media.interactive A big advantage of this naming scheme is that as groups get too crowded or as new areas develop it would be easy to add new groups such as comp.media.audio, comp.media.dvi, comp.media.video-compression, etc. If this isn't acceptable, I'd at least like to make an objection to the term "multimedia." I would prefer "interactive multimedia" or even the broader "interactive media." If the name comp.interactive-media is too long, I suppose it could be shortened to comp.imedia. By the way, is this discussion supposed to take place in comp.ivideodisc or news.announce.newgroups? (I'd crosspost if my newsreader let me.) Jim Taylor Microcomputer Support for Curriculum | Brigham Young University | Bitnet: taylorj@byuvax.bitnet 101 HRCB, Provo, UT 84602 | Internet: taylorj@yvax.byu.edu
a544@mindlink.UUCP (Rick McCormack) (12/02/90)
I wonder if we could consider a name for the group that stresses the *Inter-Active* rather than the *Multi-Media*? As this group is called *Ivideo*, (I feel the I-part could be expanded to IA as in IAVideo), a logical step would be to *Comp.IAmedia*. ______________________________________________________________ | Rick McCormack | IMAGISTICS BUSINESS THEATRE TECHNOLOGY | | Vancouver, BC | Information transfer - with a purpose. | | CANADA | ________________________________________ | | AOL: Rique | INTERACTIVE COMPREHENSIVE ENLIGHTENING | |________________|____________________________________________|
young@brahms.udel.edu (Phillip Young) (12/04/90)
I agree with the base note. The term "multimedia" has stuck to this technology. This term will be easily recognized by those who are interested. We can debate about the PERFECT name forever, but I'd rather not wait forever for the newsgroup to be formed.
lark@tivoli.UUCP (Lar Kaufman) (12/05/90)
In article <4011@mindlink.UUCP> a544@mindlink.UUCP (Rick McCormack) writes: >I wonder if we could consider a name for the group that stresses the >*Inter-Active* rather than the *Multi-Media*? As this group is called >*Ivideo*, (I feel the I-part could be expanded to IA as in IAVideo), a logical >step would be to *Comp.IAmedia*. I like Kathy Strong's suggestion for comp.interactive, I think (unless there is a groundswell of preference for comp.polymedia, of course). I don't know that I want to see too much convergence of the computer-video stuff into the interactive media stuff - there is a lot of computer video activity that is non-interactive and not multimedia. 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. Interactive is the key word here. (I have no objection to subsuming hypertext into the group.) -lar -- Lar Kaufman I would feel more optimistic about a bright future (voice) 512-329-2455 for man if he spent less time proving that he can (fax) 512-329-2755 outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness lark@tivoli.com and respecting her seniority. - E.B. White
ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) (12/05/90)
> 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
young@brahms.udel.edu (Phillip Young) (12/05/90)
> >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.... > >Interactive is the key word here... > Yes, but virtually EVERY computer program is interactive these days. Just as "multimedia" has different connotations depending on whether you come from a fine arts, boardroom presentation, or computing perspective; so does "interactive". To a video producer "interactive" connotes interactive video. This may be as simple as a level I videodisc and doesn't involve a computer at all. To a programmer interactive is simply getting data, interactively, from the user. I agree that multimedia isn't the perfect name. But, virtually every industry magazine (Dr. Dobbs, Infoworld, Byte, etc.) use the term to refer to what (IMHO) this group is about. Any other name could cause potential new subscribers to pass us by.