Take the 2-minute tour ×
User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We are making a website for pixel art that will have a diverse audience.

Our leading tagline for the site is: "Real-time, collaborative pixel art." Real-time meaning updates to the pages will be immediate without page reload (real-time technology).

We are not wordsmiths by any means. So we are curious as to the scope of the term "real-time" - will this term be understood among a broad audience? If not, what term would be better? Perhaps "Live"?

share|improve this question
2  
I think you are fine with 'real-time', but have you considered 'immediate' as a descriptor? –  Michael Kohne Apr 13 '13 at 20:01
    
@MichaelKohne We haven't really considered 'immediate.' I'm not so sure it's the right descriptor for this context, but we'll give it some thought. –  Stephen Watkins Apr 13 '13 at 20:40
2  
The greatest threat here is not the users' attitude or lack of understanding (they can swallow "real-time" all right) but rather the risk of getting condescending looks from engineers. The use of "real-time" is quite jarring here, as it is contrary to both hard and soft real-time definitions. –  Deer Hunter Apr 14 '13 at 5:40

6 Answers 6

up vote 12 down vote accepted

Real-time is a term that is not just used in the tech world:

Real-time Leader Updates for the Masters

Real-time Stock Quotes

Real-time Hurricane Updates

I agree with Koen Lageveen, "live" doesn't always mean "real-time" in your context. Sometimes you see "live" and "up-to-the-minute" together, whereas "real-time" is trying to convey the idea of "up-to-the-millisecond" type of updates.

I'd stick with the term "real-time".

share|improve this answer
    
Good examples. The term does seem to be accepted and understood among diverse audiences. We'll stick with 'real-time'. –  Stephen Watkins Apr 14 '13 at 19:26

I had to read your explanation of what "Real-time" meant in your context. Although the idea of a system doing something in real-time could be common enough (in tech anyway) to be understood, "Real-time, collaborative pixel art" does't tell me what exactly is real-time about it. So, apparently the technology is real-time, stuff is being updated in real-time, sounds great. What would be interesting to me as a user however, is how that matters for my interaction with the website. How that relates to the collaboration.

In short: I think your tagline should emphasize the features that are cool about using the website, not about what's cool about the technology.

The term "Live" has been hijacked in websites to mean "something interactive web2.0-y". As in Live Messenger. Which may actually be what you're looking for and to me sounds like a good fit (but I'm no wordsmith either and there may be an even better word).

share|improve this answer
1  
"I think your tagline should emphasize the features that are cool about using the website" ... 'Real-time' is not just a technology on our site, but a very big feature of the site. So we definitely believe the idea is worth emphasizing. How to best express that idea is where we are running into a bit of a roadblock. Thanks for the input. –  Stephen Watkins Apr 13 '13 at 19:49

No, not really. But as you suggested yourself Live is a much better term to use. Users know what live is since they probably sometimes in there lives have seen some live news coverage:

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
    
I think foreign visitors can misunderstand this term, cause analogy with TV shows is not straightforward. I suppose, it is better to use such forms (especially fittable to slogan), as "immediate interaction" or "right now right here" etc. –  Alex Ovtcharenko Apr 13 '13 at 20:01
1  
+1. I also think "Live" has a universal ring to it which "realtime" lacks. –  Mohit Apr 15 '13 at 3:58

(I'm not wordsmith either but....) I think "real-time" is the right term here. Even if people don't have a good understanding of what "real-time" means, I think most (English speaking) computer users will get the gist of the term "real-time collaboration".

However, "Real-time, collaborative pixel art" doesn't make sense to me, how can pixel art be collaborative? Maybe I'm just missing something. "Real-time, collaborative pixel art creation" does make sense to me.

share|improve this answer
1  
Correct, the process of creating pixel art will be a collaborative effort. We were trying to make the phrase concise, but you may be right - it may be too concise to make complete sense. –  Stephen Watkins Apr 13 '13 at 20:37
    
Within the artistic community, collaboration implies creation. It's not necessary to include "creation" in the description (and it does sound awkward as written). –  Izkata Apr 14 '13 at 15:16

To me, 'Live' seems more like a media (TV/news) word. Live news, live coverage, live poll, etc.

'Real-time' on the other hand, seems more related to computers in general, applications, websites, sensors, etc. Real-time eye tracking, real-time computing, etc.

Basically (IMO), for the most part, anything which has a human involved at it's core, it's generally called live, and anything with a computer/technology at it's core, it's assigned real-time.

share|improve this answer

To basically agree with most previous commenters, I think "real-time" and "live" have been thoroughly overused. You want to emphasize collaboration, interaction, and sharing.

Worse, I don't think "real-time" is actually that well understood within the tech community. I recommend sticking with descriptions that more directly address your value proposition.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.