[X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

GLG info at 3dnetproductions.com
Tue Jan 4 08:44:04 PST 2011


>The bet this time is direct browser rendering
>ensures that the
>engines required (debate plugins but demonstrably, they
>work) can be more
>universal (standard) and less maintenance prone therefore
>will be used by
>the class of users who can use them:  app builders.  Not
>Joe Homepage.  He
>uses what app builders build.
>
>The history of 3D on the web is those apps don't get built.
>Here is a
>failure of imagination.  XTraNormal took a similar
>environment, added
>reasonable text to voice, used a gestural library, a drag
>and drop and
>created a pop phenomenon, thus, winning on the street.
>
>Instead, 3D is in web standards hell.


There is a lot of truth to that. And meanwhile, 3D worlds
and games that do not care about standards are sailing
along, "winning on the street" as you say. Largely because
end-users do not care about that sort of things. Builders
do. So in the end, it is the quality of the content that
wins on the street, not the standards. IOW, standards can
benefit builders but not really content consumers, unless of
course those consumers happen to be builders as in SL (not
that SL abides to any standard that I know of. Any take on
this?) 

Anyway, it's easy to agree on the above, but, ultimately, if
you can facilitate content delivery to the consumer that
always helps. With OT, what I find is, I first need to sell
the plugin (download) before I can sell the content; as in,
I need to sell the packaging before the product. Compound
that with the technicalities of installation, and the magic
is gone, I loose the immersion, the dropout rate is too high
and that's wasted; I need to compete at the 2D level and
then some, before my 3D content can even stand a chance to
sell itself. That's harder. But, if on the other hand my 3D
content could be immediately exposed that becomes a
non-issue, and Joe Homepage might be interested to do it
too, inciting more and more like him to go 3D. The
cumulative effect of that could very well just propel the
consumer market to 3D. Only Flash could match it, and we all
know how effective that is (ex: XTraNormal). Since Flash can
actually exist inside the 3D space, imagine the bombshell. I
think Joe Homepage is much more capable than is given
credit. 

Granted, we first have to go back to VRML1 for this to
happen; we need to start somewhere, but progress should come
steadily since we know exactly where to go. There are also
improvements to plugin installation in the pipeline to
facilitate the existing scenario. I'd rather play on both
front, so that one may lead to the other, until maybe the
first can sustain itself. X3D plugin improvements will have
a determinant effect on that happening or not, since they
have a long lead-time advantage. Both content delivery
methods can be complementary though (regardless of
standards), and either way, overall, this is win-win. Now,
that gets me dreaming again. Imagine what would happen if we
loaded an X3D plugin running Flash inside something like
XML3D? The possibilities are mind-boggling. :) Perhaps none
of this is useful to you, just worth considering.

Cheers,
Lauren  



  >-----Original Message-----
>From: Len Bullard [mailto:cbullard at hiwaay.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:34 AM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: 'Philipp Slusallek'; 'Joe D Williams'; 'Chris Marrin';
>x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: RE: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>W3C
>
>The dream?  I dunno.  I just needed something to decorate
>songs. :)
>
>It can be done with or without standards for 3D.  This is
>purely a market to
>customer challenge.  For this kind of application, X3D is
>in no way
>deficient.
>
>The VRML design is resilient as evidenced by the
>reincorporation of it in
>every new proposed design-cum-standard.   Discussions of
>strengths enhance
>resiliency.
>
>X3D works today if you have the chops to build with it.
>Daunting, but for
>sampling to video, worth the time and cheap say FREE.
>
>XML3D is where VRML 1.0 was when the Intervista browser was
>created.
>Whatever advantages accrue to the code base, they have to
>ultimately be
>realized in applications used by the workforce or they are
>hobbyist
>technology.  The bet this time is direct browser rendering
>ensures that the
>engines required (debate plugins but demonstrably, they
>work) can be more
>universal (standard) and less maintenance prone therefore
>will be used by
>the class of users who can use them:  app builders.  Not
>Joe Homepage.  He
>uses what app builders build.
>
>The history of 3D on the web is those apps don't get built.
>Here is a
>failure of imagination.  XTraNormal took a similar
>environment, added
>reasonable text to voice, used a gestural library, a drag
>and drop and
>created a pop phenomenon, thus, winning on the street.
>
>Instead, 3D is in web standards hell.
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GLG [mailto:info at 3dnetproductions.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:45 AM
>To: 'Len Bullard'
>Cc: 'Philipp Slusallek'; 'Joe D Williams'; 'Chris Marrin';
>x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: RE: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>W3C
>
>Len wrote;
>>model (eg, XtraNormal, Jing, YouTube, etc.)  A services
>>model for any of
>>these technologies relies on content builders creating
>>libraries of
>>reusuable parts but this as a content requirement doesn't
>>require a standard
>>as it does an integrated builder system that is easy to
>use
>>and compose.
>>IOW, YouTube has a format standard:  MP4.
>
>
>Building point and click persistent scenes/worlds seems
>very
>close here. It is not difficult to imagine web only
>interfaces to this, even using just primitives, and
>supported by SQL back-ends in a manner akin to SL. It looks
>like all of the parts are there or will be. It is only a
>matter of putting it together and I suspect many will do,
>thus turning the web into the giant virtual space we've
>been
>waiting for. At the very least, the potential for this is
>enormous. Maybe year 2012 (or 2013 who knows) would be the
>year when it reaches critical mass and the web finally
>turns
>3D. Reality is made of dreams like this. This dream I'm
>really starting to believe in.
>
>Cheers,
>Lauren





More information about the X3D-Public mailing list