Difference between revisions of "ConRunner talk:Community Portal"
(Plea for not introducing new terminology) |
Bill Taylor (Talk | contribs) (→New Terminology) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Of course we should include (and explain) all widely used terminology. However, I'm seeing a lot of terminology that so far as I can tell ''isn't'' used in con-running, but is being imported from mundane event-planning and business circles. Some of this terminology really grates on me ("member services"), and others of it conflicts with well-established and widely-used con-running terminology ("operations"). I think it's fairly important that we not introduce ''new'' terminology unless there's a compelling reason; things are confused enough as they are! --[[User:Dd-b|dd-b]] 00:27, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT) | Of course we should include (and explain) all widely used terminology. However, I'm seeing a lot of terminology that so far as I can tell ''isn't'' used in con-running, but is being imported from mundane event-planning and business circles. Some of this terminology really grates on me ("member services"), and others of it conflicts with well-established and widely-used con-running terminology ("operations"). I think it's fairly important that we not introduce ''new'' terminology unless there's a compelling reason; things are confused enough as they are! --[[User:Dd-b|dd-b]] 00:27, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | In retrospect, introducing functional analysis has obviously engendered a bad reaction. People expect to see things they way they have always been. Breaking out specific needed functions independent of the department that usually executes them confused people, especially when the names sometimes overlap and somtimes don't. Made perfect sense to me, but I'm the one that did it. But then I don't believe it would have been received significantly better had it been grouped the same way, but labled A, B, C, D, E, F --[[User:Bill Taylor|Bill Taylor]] 08:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 08:18, 14 October 2005
New Terminology
Of course we should include (and explain) all widely used terminology. However, I'm seeing a lot of terminology that so far as I can tell isn't used in con-running, but is being imported from mundane event-planning and business circles. Some of this terminology really grates on me ("member services"), and others of it conflicts with well-established and widely-used con-running terminology ("operations"). I think it's fairly important that we not introduce new terminology unless there's a compelling reason; things are confused enough as they are! --dd-b 00:27, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
In retrospect, introducing functional analysis has obviously engendered a bad reaction. People expect to see things they way they have always been. Breaking out specific needed functions independent of the department that usually executes them confused people, especially when the names sometimes overlap and somtimes don't. Made perfect sense to me, but I'm the one that did it. But then I don't believe it would have been received significantly better had it been grouped the same way, but labled A, B, C, D, E, F --Bill Taylor 08:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
