Does the Embedded Group Need A Better Definition?

I can't speak for others, but this category and terminology was never used where I went to school nor anyplace I ever worked. It has certainly garnered a place as a catch-all category even with big conferences using it in their name, but lay-people wouldn't have a clue to its significance and I almost never use the term embedded when discussing applications that would fall into this category. If I was publishing a blog describing an embedded application, I would typically look for a more specific group to attach it to.

I have nothing against having it as a catch-all group category on the forum, it probably should be there, I just don't hang out in that group, even though much of what I do is embedded.

I always assumed the Topics (groups) were chosen for their commercial significance to element14 - I don't hang out in any of them - I just read all the blog posts and discussions  from all groups.

I agree with Douglas.

Embedded was a term used in the 1980's but it is really meaningless with today's options.

I would go with something like Makerspace Electronics to better define the focus on using electronics of all types for builds.

DAB

Embedded computers or computing used to mean computers embedded into a system to such an extent that the computer was either not apparent or not important to the user of the system:

see  Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_system

An embedded system is a computer system with a dedicated function within a larger mechanical or electrical system, often with real-time computing constraints.^[1][2] It is embedded as part of a complete device often including hardware and mechanical parts. Embedded systems control many devices in common use today.^[3] Ninety-eight percent of all microprocessors are manufactured as components of embedded systems.^[4]

The term is more broadly used now but I think it is still relevant, I interpret "Embedded" as a shortening of "Embedded Computing", but perhaps that's not as universal as I thought.

I don't feel that Makerspace Electronics is the same thing - the "Maker" thing has, to me at least, more social/political overtones and is less of a technology definition.

Finally, I'm with Douglas on this, I look at stuff that seems interesting - people often post in the wrong group anyway.

MK

I don't disagree that the names of our groups on some level "have commercial significance." But I don't think that's our first concern. A healthy community that encourages participation and engagement is really our first concern. (My bosses and myself have made special efforts and taken a lot of time lately to ensure that the community is not used solely as a lead generator.) We want our groups to be focused on topics that encourage discussion and participation. That was my motivation in posting this discussion. Your comment along with the others who've posted are an eye opener in some respects. I always thought of it as embedded computing, but that's a wide open term too. Right now, I have no plans to change anything. I was wondering if we -- the element14 team -- needs to promote projects, giveaways, articles -- to facilitate this group's interest.

Thanks.

Randall

Randall, I don't disagree so much to the term "Embedded" itself (also if it is a bit outdated). What I think is that Embedded alone is too wide resulting to a few interesting topic. Maybe an idea to join in some way Embedded and another term between make(r) (and all the possible declination) as well as "board" or "world"

From playing with embedded boards up to embedded platforms for makers, making with embedded boards, makers in the embedded world (???)

Enrico

Any attention like that to any group will help make it a more popular group - and is welcomed. I like the fact that you are pondering issues like this, it makes me feel like the forum is in good hands. And I like the openness - that makes the forum more interesting and makes us feel more a part of it.

Good job rscasny !

Members probably don't spend as much time trying to figure out how to improve the forum, so if you say this group or that group needs a bit more activity, I'm all ears and it is worth trying to see if it triggers increased activity.

There may be a delayed reaction though. For example, I have a long-standing back-burner half-complete project that I could put in the embedded space if "someone" wants it there, but it won't happen soon - it depends on when I can acquire the right gear to complete the development.

Again... I was thinking also to another option, despite remain a good idea to make the name more "popular". Celebrating the new name can be a good idea to launch a series of projects focused on the use of embedded platforms to create at least a first period of renewed interest ?

It seems that this idea has worked on some other projects ...

Enrico

DAB wrote:

 

Embedded was a term used in the 1980's but it is really meaningless with today's options.

I guess its dependant on the types of companies you've been working in. For me, "Embedded" is a term that has always been used extensively in the places I have worked and still is. For example, our software teams are usually split into the "Applications" team which are responsible for writing UI applications which run on standard PC's, and the "Embedded Software" teams who deal with all the OS and software running on "non desktop" platforms as well as the DSP code running on those platforms. I guess maybe the Embedded group could do with having some sub categories and maybe some descriptions explaining what those categories are intended to represent?

Best Regards,

Rachael

Rachael,

Thanks for the comment. The term definitely encompasses several sub-categories. I think we need to explain it better.

Randall

I'm a fan of a good explanation and few if no subgroups.

I have two reasons for that:

- subgroups create more confusion than solution.

- blogs in subgroups don't get views, and comments are mostly from the in-crowd.

That's all. I'll get my coat