On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.comwrote:
That did cross my mind, and it was tempting. But practically, many busy journalists, causal readers, and novice editors may base a lot of their initial reaction on the name alone, or on related language in the interface. By choosing an arbitrary name, some fraction of people will dig deeper, but another fraction will just retain their perplexity and/or alienation.
This is a really good point, and brings up another point for everyone to consider. If the name is not *immediately* evocative of something to the casual reader, it might as well be called the "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch". It will be a blank slate as far as journalists and the world at large is concerned. I think we're better off with a term that gets us in the ballpark with little or no mental energy than we are picking something that has clinical precision, but takes more than a few milliseconds of consideration to get the the gist.
Rob