[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: :zz: Orthoplex or Hypergrid? You decide
- To: Tuomas Lukka <lukka@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: :zz: Orthoplex or Hypergrid? You decide
- From: "B. Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:54:13 +0200
- Cc: Leslie Carr <lac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx, ih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Helen Ashman <hla@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adam.Moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Tim Brailsford <tim.brailsford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Craig D. Stewart" <craig.stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, naemura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ted Nelson <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <188.8.131.52.20010915233021.008b09a0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <001001c1407b$62644ca0$f3444e98@starbug> <3BACE45F.C3F8BA8B@xxxxxx> <20010923113805.A15521@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> > > I feel comfortable with putting "orthoplex" or
> > > "orthoplectic software" in a funding proposal or technical article.
> > Well, I have a different perspective there: I do not care much about
> > sounding technical; I care about a word that sounds interesting to
> > someone who hears it for the first time, that does not sound overly hard
> Obviously several terms are needed for different contexts. For example,
> applying for funding for researching "haptic technologies" is much better
> than "force feedback" but on the side of a joystick box, "force feedback"
> is much more convincing than "haptic joystick".
A very good example. That's exactly what I mean.