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

Tue Jan 4 11:25:39 PST 2011

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