Proposal: Graphics Layer Architecture

This proposal used to be called Computer Graphics Programming, but I decided to rename it to Graphic Layer Architecture, based on some input.

What do you think? What name fits it better? Which is more relevant? And what about the sub-domain name? (I think it should be kept short).

This is the scope of the site:

Proposed Q&A site for computer graphics researchers and programmers. Includes discussion of image processing, computational geometry and topology, ray tracing technologies, graphics libraries, gpgpu, specific graphics cards questions, and performance related questions.

(1/21/2014) Site has been renamed back Computer Graphics Programming

3 Answers 3


Personally, I think that "Graphics Layer Architecture" sounds broader than computer graphics. But, it probably isn't that good for getting search engine results.

I suggest going back to or "Computer Graphics Programming." Even though the scope of a question might not always be about computer graphics (gpgpu, for example). "Computer Graphics Programming" is better than "Computer Graphics" because the latter might confuse people into thinking that it's about cg animation, and such. I also suggest that the subdomain name be cg.stackexchange.com (instead of the long computergraphicsprogramming.stackexchange.com)

  • +1 for suggesting the shorter / easier to remember URL cg.stackexchange.com
    – wip
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 2:40
  • "Layer"/"Architecture" are too broad for meaty technical gfx-dev questions like winding a tri-strip around a cube, or designing a micro-facet physically-based shader. +1 for cg.stackexchange.com and "Computer Graphics" or "CG Programming".
    – unbuffered
    Commented Jun 14, 2014 at 18:01

Computer Graphics Programming seems to unnecessarily restrict the domain of the site to purely-programatic topics. A resource for computer graphics would seem woefully incomplete if if did not also provide resources aimed at the art and production side of computer graphics.

While I could see the desire to target this at the (small subset of) people who are deeply embedded in low-level graphics architecture, it seems like the community could be better served by a more general resource.

On that note, I'd suggest the name "Computer Graphics", and that one welcome the GC/animation community with open arms.


In the link you provided, @shotgun-ninja and @blue seemed to be looking for a place providing low-level information, and suggested to use the term "Architecture".

I am looking for a place where you can discuss the implementation details of Visual Effects generated by Computer.

If this is within the scope of this site, then I think its name should suggest a broader focus than "Graphics Layer Architecture".

My suggestion is "Computer Graphics". I suggested such a site (before realising it could be merged with this one).

You must log in to answer this question.

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