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

[GLG]

>Lauren, can you please take over at this point :-).

:) I am glad to be of assistance. I owe you at least that
much.

Cheers,
Lauren


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>saarland.de]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:26 PM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: 'Len Bullard'; x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>W3C
>
>Hi,
>
>I could not have said it better. That is exactly where I
>hope we will be
>going.
>
>Lauren, can you please take over at this point :-).
>
>	Philipp
>
>Am 04.01.2011 17:44, schrieb GLG:
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> X3D-Public mailing list
>> X3D-Public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org