Should we revise the descriptive text for the 3D Graphics proposal?

Question

Proposal: 3D Graphics, Modeling & Applications

Before moving from Proposal phase to Commitment phase, the long text description of this site was:

(this site is for) any 3D graphics creator who wants to improve their technique - including mesh-modeling, lighting, rendering, rigging, and animation. Also for package-specific questions about Maya, 3ds Max, Blender, Sketchup, and other 3D-modeling software.

After entering Commitment phase, the moderators edited it down to:

Proposed Q&A site for 3D graphics creators.

Is this version too short? We have one question about adding Animation to the title, but the original text actually mentions rigging and animation.

Should we change the descriptive text? (And by we, I mean the moderators :) Are there any better wordings?

Answer 1

Personally, I think a longer text description would clear up what the site is for.

For one wording change, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to drop the specific package names, and leave it more general.

(this site is for) any 3D graphics creator who wants to improve their technique - including mesh-modeling, lighting, rendering, rigging, and animation.

Answer 2

Yes i think the long title is better. Using those Applications always includes modeling, animation, riggin, skinning, material, mapping, light, rendering, plug-ins, fx and so on. Maybe the page will attract more people if the title is more universal for the topic and also bring it faster in beta. suggestions?

3D content creation

also for 3ds max when i do CAD stuff i would not call it graphics, but maybe my english is not good enough.