Slashdot Mirror
Mapping a Path For the 3D Web
An anonymous reader writes to mention C|Net coverage of the Metaverse Roadmap Summit, an event designed to look at the future of 3D Web environments. From the article: "While many took issue with the basic premise that an overriding 3D Web will be in place within 10 years, it was clear that most in attendance relished mixing it up as part of an august group that included Microsoft's Robert Scoble, former Sony Online Entertainment chief creative officer Raph Koster, PARC researcher Bob Moore, online game pioneer Randy Farmer, There.com founder and currently IMVU CEO Will Harvey, and CNET Networks editor at large Esther Dyson."
Ten years ago i was working in the virtual reality field. People swore we would have a 3D web in ten years ten years ago. Anyone remember VRML?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Let's hope it doesn't turn out like the Lawnmower Man. Why did that movie need a sequel anyway?
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
Web 3.0? Anyone? ...Bueller?
Hard to fathom. How, exactly, can a 3D Web be useful in any way? What benefits will it offer that we don't have currently? Sounds like more hype regarding a useless technology (read: VR).
The craze of making everything 3D is over. Just leave well enough alone. If a 3D web becomes necessary at some point, then the technology will be developed. Until then, however, we're just taking shots in the dark at what people *might* want.
That being said, if a 3D web is going to come out of anywhere, it will probably stem from the MMOGs. These virtual worlds have become so popular that in some cases they manage to displace the idea of meeting in real life.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Yes I remember VRML. I also remember ten years ago we didn't have GPU's like we do now.
People are trying to bring 3D to the web, like curl and X3D for example. The story also mentions that Croquet may be a possability.
A new and exciting Pop-Up delivery system
Because every resource can be "next to" hundreds of other resources with are all "next to" hundreds of non-overlapping resources of their own. ...and all of those relationships can be changes instantly.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
This will never fly.
People don't want to 'walk' around a store to shop, thats Why they go online.
My biggest beef with MMOGs is that I have to spend time going to and from missions. The market won't want to commute to and from stores in a virtual strip mall.
"I have an odd craving to whisper about those few frightful hours in that ill-rumored and evilly shadowed seaport of dea
Somehow I don't think it'll be open source, if it ever gets built.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
and controllers.
Immersive VR is doomed to failure until the interface to it improves and gets cheaper. HMDs are nice and all, but without a more efficient way to move through the scene, 2D will continue to be a more productive way to interact with data and 3D will continue to be eye candy.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
"3D Web - For those that miss the slow old days"
"3D Web - Bringing your 5 year old PC to a stop today"
"3D Web - We make 100% use of your available bandwidth"
"3D Web - With the virtual girls we have, there is not even a reason to bother with a real one"
"3D Web - You thought pop-ups were annoying? Wait till you see 3D billboards go by!"
3D Web!?! I'm still waiting for 3D television!
Let's go for the Garbage File! I'm gonna hack the gibson!
I believe a huge reason why we don't see 3D web pages today is that nobody wants to see a 3D page on a 2D display. I'm pretty certain that a great majority of people out there want things as simple as possible, thus why 3D games have such a small following when compared to the number of people that browse the web. Its also possible that we just aren't ready to get this kind of information in 3 dimensions, we're still used to paper!
"Hard to fathom. How, exactly, can a 3D Web be useful in any way? What benefits will it offer that we don't have currently? Sounds like more hype regarding a useless technology (read: VR)."
Uh, yeah! Useless like Medical training.
Additionally, VRML is **NOT** 3D. I realize that the term "3D" is used to represent anything that simulates depth, but frankly I get tired of people tacking "3D" onto something just because it doesn't have a distinctly flat appearance. VRML or any other modeling tool is not inherently 3D unless there is a way to get different light signals to each eye in order to make the brain bring the images together as true depth. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a 2D surface using shading and form to make you see a pseudo-3D image.
Yes, I'm being pedantic and I gladly admit that; but until such time as web designers require red/blue anaglyph, polarizing, or other types of glasses to give the site true depth, there will be no such thing as the "3D web". Just like with so-called 3D games*, using "3D" with an inherently 2D medium is nothing more than a marketing/glitz word that is used to imply that it's better than came previously.
* With few exceptions like "Magic Carpet", which includes a well-done, red/blue anaglyph mode as well as "Magic Eye" mode.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
When it comes to me and the limit of my senses and the limits of the output devices today 2d is the way to go. Infact 2d may be the logical way to go even if we did have better 3d functions. 3d is great in games because games are there to simulate rela life (in most cases) but when it comes down to research or buying something online it's much easier for me to goto a fairly simple search engine and look down a list instead of going into a virtual library or whatever.
Unless there is real need for a 3d environment I don't see the benifit of organizing information in 3d, it's just sloppy and frankly the gimick will wear thin quickly.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Aren't controllers already 3d?! :P
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
This is a UNIX system... I know this!
"Its also possible that we just aren't ready to get this kind of information in 3 dimensions, we're still used to paper!"
I think writing on cubes would be a bit annoying.
Kaetemi
"Yes, I'm being pedantic and I gladly admit that; but until such time as web designers require red/blue anaglyph, polarizing, or other types of glasses to give the site true depth, there will be no such thing as the "3D web". Just like with so-called 3D games*, using "3D" with an inherently 2D medium is nothing more than a marketing/glitz word that is used to imply that it's better than came previously."
Look at a painting. Looks 3D even without the glasses. Guess "(POW) painters of the world" marketing was hugely successful if it got the art world to buy into "flat surface looks 3D".
Why does the web have to be (pseudo-)3D? What advantage is there to browsing Wikipedia in 3D? I've tried a few 3D file browsers, and they're just a gimmick, nothing I'd ever think of using on a daily basis. Screens are usually two-dimensionally oriented, and 3D messes it all up.
Moving vertices around in 3DS Max in a complex model is already complicated enough, gathering data online shouldn't be.
What advantage does this bring to me? I don't usually shop online, but I don't want to "walk" through a "3D virtual mall" either. I don't want to have porn ads suddenly jump out of a door and blow up in my face accompanied with a loud explosion while everyone on the business end of the screen gets a seizure...
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
Come on .. Al Gore invented this sometime ago.
Two wrongs don't make a right - but two do's make a dodo
People said similar things when they were told to move from DOS to Window-based systems: "We don't need to point and click, we can type commands just fine"
3D enables more visual clues when dealing with data, much more than possible with text. Now you look at a page full of text as your search results. You can glance at search results in 3D and see which are more linked-to(ala Google) or which are recommended by your group of friends instantly. We are not there yet but when you see it, you will realize you really needed it all this time.
And I am not even going near the social co-location aspects of a 3D internet.
Finally a 3D Web that fits the 3D desktop which was promised to rule desktop pc's by now....
It was 3D because you could interact in 3D. You could walk into/around/through the scene. In 1997. That's the point.
You will never have perfect (or good, even) pop-out-of-the-screen 3D with a 2D screen. Polarization is faking it. Red-Blue glasses are faking it. (These two are also noted for not working on some people with depth/color perception issues, and causing migraine headaches in a good portion of the population with extended use) HUD's are good but an expensive piece of hardware.
3 axis.
Think about it. Your mouse moves on a desk... forwards and back, left and right. How would you translate up and down? Your mouse is a 2 degree of freedom (2DOF) input device. You still need 3 more degrees of freedom (rotation... you can get 2 of them using arrow keys...)
There are some 6DOF input devices. They tend to be expensive.
Now web pages can suck in three dimensions!
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
Boy, oh, boy are you wrong. First of all, two 2D images projected onto your eyes to simulate depth, are no more 3D than just one 2D image. I might look more 3D, but since you seem to be a stickler for naming things correctly, it's in no way true 3D. The point is that VRML, just like 3D animated movies and FPSs are modeled inside the computer as three dimensional objects. You translate, shear, scale and rotate in three dimensions. Then it is projected on a 2D surface, that is true, but it still 3D inside the computer. If you demand that the projection also is 3D (and stereoscopic images ARE NOT three dimensional, they are simply two 2D images), the only thing that's going to fulfill that is, well, holograms or a good performance of Hamlet. That's also why it is wrong to call DOOM a 3D shooter, because while it looks like 3D, the engine is pure 2D.
The screen is flat! End of discussion.
being smart is exausting
Wait, does this mean Google will have to pay triple for my browsing habits?
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
You CAN do 3D content based web, 3D navigation and 3D styles in latest Macromedia Flash already.
But, no one really cares, major decisition makers at big media stick to 2D and for a bunch of good reasons.
Only some retarded geeks from Sony's media department may think that 3D is inevitable "next step" but it isnt, 3D has its uses here and there in the pages, some web content is already in 3D (if needed), but general 2D page layout will not be abandoned simply because it works so well, is understandable, simple to use and easy to navigate with current input controlers, keyboard, mouse... this may change only if those controlers and display tech. changes.
Sure, pure 3D is pretty useless for browsing the web today, but it's one component of an evolving and emerging technology that blends the real world and virtual world.
One could readily imagine many uses for immersive 3D environments from remote medical procedures to collaborative architecture to interior design to automobile sales to video games to many other things.
3D digital cameras and such aren't that far away and would be way cool. I'd certainly like to enter a map address into google and get a virtual picture of where I'm going. At least 3D enhanced would be great for many things.
Noone needs 3D email, but it clearly has its place in the broader UI technology space. 10-15 years sounds like a reasonable target.
News Flash: We already have 3D web pages -- 'D!gg Spy' (can I say that on Slashdot?) and the "In The News" VOX visualizer both include that important 3rd Dimension: time. Of course Wikipedia has an important time element too.
This to me is a MUCH more useful dimension to add to Web content.
As much as this seems like a cool idea, the article fails to back it up with any rational explanation for a 3D web. The only feasible use of 3D would be interactivity, therefore drastically limiting the consumer base. To most, the internet is a tool; A means of communication. Adding a third dimension to many aspects would only serve to exponentially increase the amount of information transferred and stored to maintain such an environment, while adding a new depth (pun intended) to already interactive applications which may or many not benefit from such a change. As much as the ASF may think 3D will revolutionize the way people communicate via the internet, it will likely only apply to a select few (not unlike the "august group" from the article).
"Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
I remember VRML. It was very much ahead of its time. It needed high bandwidth, lots of RAM, real 3D acceleration, and a purpose. It would work great on todays Internet with todays PCs. But, what is its purpose?
The main purpose for the 3D web is advertising, passive entertainment, and interactive entertainment. The idea of a 3D google interface is a bit silly, the 2D document like interface works too well to be replaced by a 3D interface. A simple 3Dish interface is coming (already here?) to the desktop in the form of translucent windows. It is nice to be able to see what is behind the top page, do we need more?
OTOH, 3D advertising might be very effective. 3D passive entertainment (3D TV) might be a lot of fun. (I really like the idea of being able to pick my viewing position for a soccer game or the Olympics, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.) And, of course, interactive entertainment in the form of MMOGs are already here. Being able to browse to them is a very nice way of selling subscriptions.
What technology do we need that we don't have? Not much really. A while back a guy on the gameprogrammer.com mailing list was talking about how he converted crystal space into a mozilla plugin. With that he can built a game and just browse to it on the net. The idea is to just distribute the plugin over the net and off you go. You could modify any of the GPLed Id engines for the same purpose.
IMHO, the guys at the summit could have implemented a large part of the technology needed to provide a browsable 3D net in the time they spent on the conference by using a little creativity and open source software.
We can have a 3D net in a few weeks or months if we want it, but I don't think anyone really wants it.
Stonewolf
Since when are our eyes 3D objects? They're not! They're 2D objects. The brain takes the results of what each eye sees then puts them together to make 3D. So, you're saying that each of our eyes is holographic? That would be something to see!
And these people call themselves visionaries. I'm holding out for 4D. :)
3D televison won't be affordable until 4D television is available
It's called http://secondlife.com/.
Although the 3D worlds like Second Life are very exciting I'm not certain that they really offer a place for peoples interactions outside of entertainment. I adore the way the system works and can be user programmed, and I'm certain that there are markets that will flourish with these metaverse systems. But in the end they are still disconnected from the real world in a major way. Why go to a conference in a 3D world with an avatar (other than for kicks) when you could just have a video conference call just as easily.
However it seems to me that the real next step is Augmented Reality. With GPS and Mobil computing finally in our grasp this could really explode. Virtual real estate that can be fitted over the real world has value to just about everyone. Not to mention if this was incorporated with what I call a Mecha Subnet (where it could be integrated to help navigate traffic) it would serve a very useful purpose.
There are a few major roadblocks. If Augmented Reality glasses don't look totally lame and are not to heavy I could see people actually adopting them. Heck if the technology actually gets to be the size of contact lenses I think it would be adopted by the larger society. As well building the feedback systems into both real world locations and the machines so that they appear as a part of the augmented reality would take a massive investment. I'm afraid that only the big corporations would have the power to build it and that we would then be locked into a system we, as the users, would have no control over.
What I propose is something that should be started asap. An open source system of augmented reality done on the cheap. The hardware is around and the tools exist. Although this would start as a geek venture at some point others will begin to adopt and put into it. I imagine an augmented reality where the users can all have there own input in creating that AR. Imagine IRC channels but AR channels. The city you lived in could have a different design created by different groups. As well if you wanted to see an avatar of a friend that lives on the other side of the planet you could have them teleport before you. Anyway just a few thoughts.
Grab the power to create before we're all walking with glasses on watching virtual characters do coke commercial skits everywhere we go.
tanks,
end15
"advertise your new product here!"
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
walking around in a 3d version of the net? /. in 3D. So I really used to be a fan of all that Metaverse initiatives, 3D desktops etc. (and there are loooots of them nowadays)
This keeps on poping up ervery once in a while and we been doing experiments with realtime-interactive webpages mapped onto arbitratry 3d object in a themeable/scriptable environment (adding mulit-user stuff using irc-channels) back in the days when we had to transfer the stuff into the OpenGL pixel buffer by hand (nowadays you even have functions like this build into Higher Level scenegraph APIs (and - heaven forbid - Direct3D). (description and videos and some screenshots including browsing
IMHO the biggest unresolved problem however remains in this: Does the added value of spatial structures of information outweight the added complexity?
guess I was thinking about the wii controller that there is so much hype around!
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
...tomorrow, apparently, it will punish those with poor spatial visualization skills, too. Nice!
Soon it will be just you and me.
The future of the past is not the present!
Just because some stupid girl used a GUI that moved a spotlight over some boxes in Jurassic Park doesn't mean we all have to slave away to build a system to waste our time in an equally useless manner.
I can't possibly imagine what a 3D Web interface would have to offer me. As pointed out by other contributors, any place on the web is right next to any other place. We will never cruise the web as if it was a highway like in the movies, because we have no idea how to get from one web site to the next (unless we do a traceroute) - nor do we need to know. It would be a completely ridiculous task to memorize all the networks one must traverse to get from point A to point B.
:)
For me, the substance of internet is mostly text - email, articles, reading Slashdot and other forums. How can 3D do anything to enhance text? Of course more and more information is available as audio or video, and that's great to have where appropriate, but there is nothing like the printed article to be able to browse at your own pace, skipping parts that don't interest you and reading a key paragraph twice. In fact, try to imagine the opposite - like - no printed matter - images only like in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. It would suck!
However, I have often wished I could experiment with a good 3D virtualization of the file system on my computer. The logical analogy is easy to imagine - buildings with rooms full of shelves and filing cabinets with drawers of folders containing files. Each room could be very different in appearance. Each filing cabinet as well may look quite different from another. You could just throw some files into a pile of miscellany on top of a table somewhere to be sorted later. You may keep some things - like your motorcycle maintenance manual - in the garden shed. Your software tools could be on a workbench in the garage. You could store secrets in wall safe hidden behind a painting where nobody would ever think to look
One would quickly get to know the layout, and where to find things. Imagine telling a family member where to find that article you downloaded last week: "Go down that hall and turn right at the end of the corridor. It's on top of the shelf at the back of the room". I don't think our current drive/path/name structure really means anything at all to non-technical people, and that's the push behind Google Desktop and Window's new system they have been developing.
On my computer, I always run a minimum of two hard drives, and often three. Everything I have is stored on at least two different drives for backup purposes. I maintain available at my fingertips many years worth of my files - mostly C/C++ source code I developed going back over a decade. I call this "my code library". Even though it's not in any way organized as a library, I can usually find some example of code I wrote years ago that is still relevant to some current project. From frequently browsing through old files, one gets to know right where to go.
On the other hand, of course it gets harder all the time as my files number in the 100's of thousands. Google Desktop is a wonderful tool that allowed me to find things I didn't even know that I had, but is only useful if you invoke the right search key. There have been many situations where I could not come up with a suitable search phrase to find what I was looking for. In such a situation, there is nothing like browsing through old files to trigger your memories. This would be greatly enhanced with a 3D interface as I describe.
It might be a long time before we can achieve fully immersive environments, but I'd settle for an open protocol-driven explorable world on today's monitors. Have you all become so jaded that you don't find it all interesting? If someone dropped a working, documented, hackable VR terminal on your desk you wouldn't even bother to look at it? How can you call yourselves geeks without being excited about cool new technology?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Place your bets!
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
You're right. I mean can you imagine the goatse guy in 3D? (shudder)
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
I'm seeing three kinds of posts here. The first is "Hi, I've been burned by Linux 1.0...er VRML 1.0, and now I'm cynical towards anything new." The other is "3D should be the full blown experience else it's time wasted". The first, one really can't do anything about except try. The second is that one shouldn't forget that 3D is a gradient.* You could apply some 3D principles towards the experience all the way to the other side of the spectrum like a full haptic. Of course the last actually sees the potential, even if the world isn't ready for it.
*In fact there's nothing to say one can't mix 2D with 3D.
Yes. But the question was where we do wanted 3d for on the web and how did we think of th web those days. Don't forget there was a dot com bubble. Most user don't acre about technologies. They generally want to do stuff. So if 3D is neccesary for a user to perform a certain task users may want to use it. I was saying for years the web is just a medium, one which is a little similar to your local harddisk. Now with the fast computers of today we could maybe run a web based office application (or maybe even an entire suite). We see some simple web games. Because of all the extra technologies apps from the web (browser, activeX, plugins, etc) programs will generally run slower than a normal desk app. Maybe the performance is comparable of that of an old computer. The latter is maybe also an explanation that not only little office like applications will eveolve to microsoft office like office suites, it may also mean that simple games will evolve to realistisc 3D games. And we can also question 3D on the Desktop for other reasons than designing and gaming. As far as I am concerned you maybe expect to run almost every application you use in your average user life to run on the web in the future. Maybe even running a complete os on the web is a way for microsoft and its hardware allies to keep people buying faster hardware.
I think the 3D web will definately go to the same amazing heights and popularity as the 3D book, 3DTV and 3D films!
Sindri Traustason.
What's needed are people who can apply this technology well. VRML never took off because it required more technology to make and view than was financially viable.
Proper application of this has a lot of potential for information organization. Say a corporation wanted to represent what they're doing for the community. Instead of offering a bland community section on their website, they can represent the different aspects of the community within the actual community, and how their efforts changed the community superimposed. What if you could navigate the island of Lost on the web? There's a lot of potential within this, it just needs to be properly implemented.
Neutiquam erro
Well, 2.5D if you count tabs.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Morning Class:
"Web3d" is pronounced OpenCroquet.org
From the article:
Croquet, an open-source software platform designed for creating collaborative, multiple-user online applications, showed off their software.
That's way understating OpenCroquet's abilities.
This would be called Web 3D.
I can't wait for the following version: Web Forever
Because Neuromancer was cool.
Simple concept. it's easier to display x number of icons in y screen area by projecting them into "space." In fact, this is probably what should be done first (keep the explorer/konqueror windows /desktop /etc) and just add three-dimensional iconing to them.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
There is a software which somewhat does what you are describing... Laying out the filesystem in a 3D rendered representation.
"The design of the interface is based on our remarkable ability to recall the placement of a virtually unlimited number of stationary objects. Quick! Where's your camera? What drawer are your blue socks in? Tactile 3D effectively identifies files, directories, and drives by using various 3D models. Organizing your data in a more visual way alleviates the current necessity to remember cryptic file and path names to get what you want."
Seems like a promising product to me.
Or can I expect a "plastic web" sometime in the future such that if I accidentally drop it in the bath, it doesn't get ruined?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I find all the negative comments here a bit puzzling. One of the ways that I think 3D could bring some real benefit is things that deal with social interactions. I have many friends in other countries that I talk to on skype pretty often.
I don't think it's ridiculous that I'd like to meet them virtually, so that in addition to voice chat I could use things like a webcam to capture facial expressions, hand gestures etc and transfer it to an avatar with computer vision algorithms.
I imagine this would be a great way to stay in touch with some of my good friends that live far away. I imagine it could also be used to make all the social networking and dating sites much more alive, who really gets to know another person just by sending text messages anyway? I know I don't. Second Life is already an early prototype of this, though it's rather primitive and limiting at the moment.
A 3D virtual environment that is as accessible as the current Web could be a boon to distance learning via online courses, especially for subjects like science, engineering, architecture, etc. Virtual world apps like Second Life or OpenCroquet will allow instructors to produce virtual, interactive, 3D demonstrations, models and other teaching aids that can be used collaboratively by students that are physically distant from each other and the instructor.
While a real-world laboratory class experience is certainly preferable, simulations in virtual lab settings for education and training are safer and may be more accessible to students who are in remote locations or to students who are disabled in some way that makes a real lab course difficult or impossible for them to attend.
Having taught physics and astronomy classes, I have often wished for a 3D chalkboard on which to draw diagrams to describe, for instance, electron motion in a magnetic field, or the difference between lunar phases and eclipses, or 3+ body gravitational interactions. In a 3D virtual classroom, I could do that. That technology is here and I would like to see it become integrated with the Web so that it is easy and cheap to access and use.
I'll grant that we have a ways to go before we have very good input/output devices for interacting with a Stephenson-like Metaverse, but for now my monitor and mouse will do. The I/O tech will catch up eventually. VR "goggles" are morphing into VR "glasses" or better yet augmented reality glasses. And Nintendo may be on to something with the Wii controller! We'll have to wait and see.
Concerning the skepticism of a 3D Web that I have seen posted in this discussion so far, I don't think the 2D Web will disappear as it gives way to a 3D Metaverse, but I do think there is room and use for both. I imagine that they will be tightly integrated and eventaully thought of as one entity. The Web is already a virtual world of sorts and we teleport around that world whenever we click a link. I imagine a 3D Web will work similarly while much of the content will continue to be displayed as 2D words on a page. However, more and more useful (and useless) content will show up as 3D objects of one sort or another.
Just my two cents.
One can fairly quickly tell the difference when one tries to focus on the out-of-focus objects in the scene, and they never come into focus, or everything is always in focus.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Cool! I downloaded 30 day free trial of the software Tactile 3D, and actually read the EULA before installing to see if there might be some mention of installing adware - there wasn't. I chose the "typical" installation and installed it. Installation proceeded quickly and simply. On booting the software, ZoneAlarm informed me that Tactile 3D wanted to connect with the internet. I didn't let it. I then proceded to give it a try, without stopping to read the manual. It works! Kind of like a video game interface - sound effects and the promised 3D layout. I'll have to give it a thorough testing (and read the manual) before I can arrive at a decision as to if it is actually useful or not. Thanks for pointing that out to me.