6
$\begingroup$

The name of our site, Computer Graphics, makes perfect sense to us because we all know that it means "Computer Graphics for programmers and researchers". However, it won't be so clear to people who are looking for a place to ask general graphics questions, including software usage advice like this.

Should this be dealt with by simply closing such questions and pointing out the site description? Or would it be worth considering a site name that makes it more clear?

The one thing I am convinced of is that we will always get off topic questions regardless of what we name the site, but I wanted to see what people think anyway.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Does the upcoming 3D Computer Graphics site affect people's decision on our name? The proposed site is about using software rather than writing software, so it will complement our site covering the same topics but from the other side. There's also discussion on their name on Area 51 but changing our name to "Graphics Programming" would solve that instantly. Does this affect our previous decision? $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ I have edited both my answers here, which means anyone who wants to can now change their vote. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 22:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would like to point out that while it may seem convenient to rename the 3D graphics proposal, all the alternate proposed names are severely misleading, and fit the 3D Graphics site even less then some alternate names for Computer Graphics. $\endgroup$
    – GiantCowFilms
    Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 23:23
  • $\begingroup$ @GiantCowFilms May as it be, but considering that the proposal had the name 3d modeling and animation for a while people voted for that. Second you can not demand somebody else to rename just because it inconvenient for you, its just bad form. Unfortunately we have to live with the status quo for the time being as changing this boat is much slower. You can push this agenda but be ready to lose the argument. I am not for the name 3D Graphics even if this site would be changing the name to 3D Programming. PS I have voted for the name change ages ago but that option is in +3/-3. $\endgroup$
    – joojaa
    Commented Apr 11, 2016 at 11:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just to make clear, Computer Graphics Stack Exchange covers 2D topics too. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Apr 11, 2016 at 13:56

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
12
$\begingroup$

Computer Graphics

Keep the current name - it's what people settled on during the definition phase and sums up the community as well as it can be.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1 from me (especially following the comments on the other answer) - I can't vote on this since I posted it. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ +1, mainly for Computer Graphics theory and research. $\endgroup$
    – psicomante
    Commented Aug 10, 2015 at 6:08
1
$\begingroup$

The name can cause problems. A very similar situation is currently playing out on graphic design se. The subtle difference between:

  • Graphic Design and
  • Graphics Design

Does not filter into new users very well. I can understand that this does not transcend through bad English very well. The decision of the community to not accept general 3d software questions for example makes no sense if the name is Graphics with an s. The site is about the design aspect not so much about the practical use aspect altough it is tolerated somewhat (3d is kicked out because of the nature of question quality)

In practice most of the users assume that it is about graphics and not about the design of the graphic. So there's a lot of closed posts going forward because of this confusion.

Now the name certainly is problematic because there's no place for the general 3d questions go to. So be ready to answer a lot of questions to this nature.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I may be wrong, but if I understand you correctly, you say that the current name will lead to many questions like "How to do X in AutoCAD/ProEngineer/SolidWorks/...?", right? $\endgroup$
    – Nero
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 12:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Nero more like 3D max, maya, how to draw sprites etc.. but yes essentially that is a danger. That again leads to bad new user policy down the line $\endgroup$
    – joojaa
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ Although I see that we are going to have questions that don't fit, I don't see this as a problem with our particular name - there doesn't seem to be a name that can prevent this. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ @trichoplax No thats not what im saying. Im just saying the name itself can bring problems, and GD.SE cant stop the torrent of questions that are out of scope and have had to capitulate on certain subjects. Its really annoying to have a front page with half of questions closed. Even worse half of questions raised by Community that have no way of ever clearing. Just so you know. I dont know i like the current name $\endgroup$
    – joojaa
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ I think the purpose of having this private beta is to make a strong case for the particular scope we want, so that we don't have to capitulate later. The scope will still develop over time, but we shouldn't let a barrage of off topic questions change our scope unless there is also a reason to think that a new type of question fits with our community. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 15:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @trichoplax its not about GD capitulating. it happened, if you get 12 out of scope every day and 1 in scope. Eventually you will get overrun by the out of scope guys! Im just saying it happens. This probably will not happen if Animation and 3d modelling goes through, though. Please support $\endgroup$
    – joojaa
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 16:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah I see. Your community didn't change its mind, it just became a completely different community due to new arrivals attracted by the name, and then they got to make the decisions. That does sound like an important reason for thinking carefully about the name. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 16:38
1
$\begingroup$

Graphics Programming

Still short, catchy, and containing the word that is likely to bring searchers here for the first time, but now clearly restricted to programming.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I believe this automatically includes the research side of things, since the only research questions that will be accepted are also programming questions. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 14:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't agree with your comment. Is not unusual that a graphics programmer needs to solve problems that are not necessarily related to programming. If only programming questions are accepted, questions like this one should not be allowed, but are those that I actually find the most interesting ones. Such questions are clearly related to computer graphics, cutting them out because not purely programming would be foolish. $\endgroup$
    – cifz
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ @cifz Yes that linked question should definitely be on topic. I see understanding of the underlying principles as an essential part of programming, but I can see how using programming in the name could give some people the impression of being only about code, rather than concepts and algorithms. It seems that "Computer Graphics" risks giving the impression that the scope is wider than it really is, but "Graphics Programming" risks giving the impression that the scope is narrower than it really is. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 21:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Given the choice, I'd rather have an open site name that brings in too many questions than a narrow site name that risks missing out on some of the questions we could see. It's easier to close unwanted questions than to attract new ones. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 21:13
  • $\begingroup$ I was undecided (hence posting the question), but this thought process leads me to reject the name "Graphics Programming". -1 from me if I could. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 9, 2015 at 21:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ With the introduction of the 3D Graphics site, this name would make much more sense though, since confusion has already occurred even before its launch. $\endgroup$
    – GiantCowFilms
    Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 22:38
  • $\begingroup$ If there's going to be a new site about using graphics software, then I'm leaning much more towards calling our site "Graphics Programming" to avoid confusion. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 23:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Besides that renaming a site that exists for so long is a bad idea, the name Graphics Programming in particular does not reflect our topic. Yes, there are many questions that involve programming and that's perfectly on-topic, but this sites scope is definitely not How to use Metal/Vulkan/OpenGL/DirectX?. That's one part of the scope, but another huge part of the scope is also the (theoretical) concepts behind generating the desired output. $\endgroup$
    – Nero
    Commented Apr 9, 2016 at 6:54
-4
$\begingroup$

Computer Generated Images

However may cause to shift too much towards special effects.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see this name as leaning towards special effects, but I do think that this is a less commonly used description of what we do, without making it any clearer that we are focused on programming and research. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax is on Codidact now
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 14:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .