Slashdot Mirror
Bringing Online Shopping Into the Future With the 3D Web
An anonymous reader writes "While there is now the possibility of using 3D in the browser over WebGL, it is still hard for regular web developers to get 3D content into websites without being hardcore graphics programmers. XML3D, a project at the Intel Visual Computing Institute, tries to tackle that problem by having a very easy-to-use language as an extension of HTML5. The goal is to standardize it with the W3C. There are already modified Firefox and Chrome browsers that support XML3D natively. At Intel's Research Blog you can find a video on what shopping at an online store could soon look like. In the example, the user purchases a DSLR that can be fully interacted with in 3D, including attaching various lenses and an external flash."
the new VRML.
Spatula City already led this revolution, perhaps just a bit too far ahead of its time.
XML3D sounds intriguing. And since we all know that porn drives new technology, it is only logical that there must be a porn site that is using this technology. And for purely educational reasons, I was wondering if someone could post a porn site that is using XML3D - I have to actually see this technology in action to truly understand it.
All over again.
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
Please show me the 2D LCD which has a viewing angle of 180x180 without (colour) distortion.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4chan in 3D!
(You're welcome)
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Right example, WRONG conclusion!
All too often when I shop on Amazon, products won't have adequate pictures that allow me to see a product from all angles and zoom factors. Many products don't even bother to list full specs. Just today I was shopping for a new projector, but many of them don't list the supported connection types, so it would be nice to be able to rotate and zoom a 3D model of the projector and visually verify that it has what I need.
If {online retailer} can't be bothered to snap a few pictures with their camera phone and/or copy/paste the product specs, what makes you think they'll bother to obtain a full blown interactive 3d representation of the device? This is why this is doomed (for online shopping at least).
Newegg (my personal favorite retailer of electronic goods except for cables, which is then monoprice) already does nice 2d pictures with zoom support so you can zoom in and see what connections are there, and you can often make out the tiny little labels even. Sometimes, they also have a 360 degree view, which is really just a series of pics shot around the product, and a slider that lets you change the pictures in order via flash (but could easily be done in JS or HTML5 etc). There is very very very little benefit to a complete 3d model over these, and it's a lot more work, it's more expensive to produce, it's less compatible with existing browsers, it's higher bandwidth, and more difficult/complicated to use, and it will likely be lower resolution.
Still photos are by far the easiest thing for a retailer to add. Snap, and attach to the product profile. You're complaining (and I agree) that there aren't enough of these already... you're delusional if you think a 3d model will show up on all those products that don't even list the basic specs or more than one pic.
360 degree photos are also quite easy, especially for a big retailer that can setup one rig to do them (ex. a single camera, product on a lazy susan, spin it while shooting a movie or taking pics, paste result to 360 degree image maker or just make it a gif), and very few products have these even some of the best retailer sites.
3d online shopping - not going to happen. Stop expecting fancy new tech to solve operational issues that have simple solutions in place that aren't being used.
3d models on the manufacturer page - I can definitely imagine this showing up on high priced items.
I am not sure what XML3D provides that X3D or Collada does not. Another "not invented here" technology? 3D scene creation is complex and compelling visualizations will never be able to be XML hand coded like HTML can be.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
I want reviews from real people, specs, facts and comparison shopping when I shop online. All of my purchases are thoroughly researched and vetted for at least 3-4 weeks before I plunk my money down(big purchase anyway). If I really wanted to see it in great detail and touch it (feel it) I'd go to a retail store. I dunno maybe this will catch on with the emotional buying crowd but if I'm buying something online this is a big waste.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
I'm imagining online shopping for clothes, where your full-body avatar has all your dimensions and you get to see how clothes might look on you.
So... "look at this crap we want you to by... *look* at it! ooo..." [moves object fitfully in/out of visual plan]
Until the 3D image is actually some sort of functional 3D projection, what's the point?
Quite so.
Today's 3d technology is not at a useful level. It's much like the video phones in 200A Space Odyssey. A cute "Sci-Fi" fad, but not a truly useful consumer technology.
Yet.
Much like the 3d televisions: A curious and half-assed implementation held back by the state of the technology, and of dubious value other than as a curiosity. If you're rich enough to by a 3d big-screen, why not? But otherwise, it's just not much of an experience.
The other point I want to touch on is this: For some reason, there are many people that are of the opinion that applying advanced technology to something automatically makes it better (like electronic balloting). But it is very rarly the actual case.
How much value would this really add beyond the kind of 2d 360 viewing technology we already have (think NewEgg)? Maybe for some things, but not a lot if any for most things.
Fad.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
But LCDs are the most common 2D viewing technology today, and no one I know denies it the status of a valid 2D viewing technology just because you can't get a non-distorted image when looking from the side. The point being that the demand is ridiculously high.
Oh, and BTW, a hologram wouldn't be valid 3D according to his definition either because it lacks an eye tracking camera!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
At least for high production volume items (so not one-of Versache dresses)
it is completely plausible the manufacturers supplying 3d models as well
as imagery for their products. After all almost everything is computer
designed at the time.
-- no sig today
Everyone bought cocks, got bored and left.
Korma: Good
Have you ever seen a hologram?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
One would think if a few large retailers got together and set a base standard of images they expect a mfr. to provide for a product, this may alleviate some of the issues. While it shifts the "burden" to the mfr, its in their marketing dept's best interest to take the time to provide the pictures so the product moves off the shelves.
...
From there, the standard could mature into 360 views and maybe one day in my lifetime 3D. Baby steps
What you're saying is true, but the example of Thingiverse rather points the way to solving the 3D artist problem: 3D scanners. One of the bottle necks in additive manufacturing is the need to design something in a CAD system before feeding it to the printer. And that's the same bottleneck you've pointed out for 3D websites. If you have a 3D scanner to generate a CAD file for an existing object, then no 3D artist time is required. Of course, in the case of a 3D printer you need to scan with X-rays to pick up internal structure, but for a website a surface scan is entirely, or at least mostly, sufficient.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Seems to me the story submitter has lost his common sense (if he ever had one). This connection is beyond stupid. First, online shopping is something that needs to reach the largest number of people possible, hence the technology needs to be simple and solid. 3D is an enemy of that. Then, people need to not spend too much time before they buy, as that decreases throughput. 3D is an enemy of that. And then, presenting things in 3D and while not adding any value whatsoever, this drives up the costs of doing business.
I vote this most stupid headline of the day.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
They have been trying it for years, every time a new incarnation, every time a new failure... heck even the os use 3D for purely useless cosmetic effects... it is much simpler to use a regular catalog with clicks and stuff. unless technology changes radically beyond the browser level (like total immersion display ... which does not seem practical except maybe for gaming/ movies), this is not going to happen soon
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
Various incarnations of this have been tried for at least 10 years.
All of them miss the point. That it's not more visuals that is lacking from online shopping, but other senses. Feeling the weight and texture, touching something, getting the full experience.
It's like increasing the resolution on sports TV because you think too many people still go to the event instead of watching it at home. That decision was hardly ever because the picture was so small.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Remember X3D? Didn't think so. X3D is VRML in XML syntax. It was supposed to put "3D on the web about a decade ago". There's also "Quicktime VR", which lets sites display a panorama, which can be either a move around the object or a view around the camera. A few real estate sites tried it. Didn't help much.
The real "3D on the Web" is in the industrial area. Companies from Asea Brown Boveri to Zummer are putting solid models of their products on the web. Not to look at, though. The models are for use with 3D CAD programs, so you can import the model for an off-the shelf gear or shaft extender and make sure it will fit before you buy. This makes mechanical design much easier, and tends to push buyers towards the sites with 3D models.
Parts Community hosts many such catalogs. Gears, gear motors, inductive proximity sensors, bearings, pneumatic cylinders, springs, robot parts, pipe fittings... The stuff you need to get work done.
Egads!!
Goatse in Interactive 3D?
Spelunkers are now cringing in terror, you insensitive clod!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I don't think you've thought this through.
1. As you said, it'd likely come from the marketing department. Look at any box or ad out there and it should be easy to see that they're not going to provide all the yes/no's needed to make an informed decision. Ex. Newegg nearly always has more info and pictures than the box the product arrives in, and sometimes they have more than the product manual.
2. This is one of the "features" that keep big retailers in power. Or, rather, the lack of mfr provided media. They can differentiate themselves some by the quality and quantity of information they provide about their products. You expect them to define the standard that will make it easier for startups to compete with them?
3. See #1... if this ever did happen, I'd continue to shop at places that add their own info/media. I do not trust the manufacturers marketing department to tell me that, for example, the eSATA port on their device doesn't support port multiplier. They'll list the features it does have (8 really fast USB ports!), instead of their limitations (7x USB 2.0 ports, 1x USB 3.0 port).
A standard info pack would be nice, and would be welcome to set a baseline of information. It doesn't solve the original posters problem, nor does it solve the 3d model problem (that won't be required for a LONG LONG time, and a 3d model is unlikely to let you differentiate between types of ports (ex. dual use USB+eSATA port; or hdmi vrs display port; they still need specs and good labels on the pics, and that's a convenience that the big retailers currently add themselves)).
Maybe someday, but the online retailers are the wrong trees at which to bark :-)
It's also completely plausible the manufacturers would provide hi-res** 2d images of each side of the device, but they don't.
The current deficiencies are easy to overcome. We don't need detailed 3d models to figure out if that port on the back of a projector is HDMI, Display Port, USB, eSATA, or memory stick (all similar dimensions that would be difficult to differentiate in a 3d model, but dead simple with just a camera phone quality image of the back of the damn thing, or a few lines of text).
I'm not against adding 3d views of products. But the OP is saying there isn't enough info on the sites already, but if they added a 3d model to all the product pages it would help immensely. Car analogy - I'm not always sure where the taxis are taking me cause there is no map in them, but if they were all transparent flying cars I could use binoculars to look all around and see exactly where I am! Why ignore the simply solution (carry a map; use a detailed 2d picture) and push one that is far more complex, non-existent/supported, expensive, and provides no additional benefit.
** hi-res being at least what my camera phone is capable of... which is enough to make out all the little text on the back of a PC).
The whole concept of the 3D browser keeps popping up every year or two like bad RIAA-lobbied legislation, and with about as much success.
The simple fact of the matter is that while there are some vertical market needs for 3D technologies like being able to show a "virtual house" on a realtor's website, the expense of creating that 3D content DWARFS the expected benefits.
So what if I could take a 3D model of a camera and put virtual lenses on it in a virtual store using 3D web interfaces? How is that going to tell me anything about how heavy the camera is, how it feels to carry, or just how easy it is to attach and remove lenses?
What really amazes me is how many hundreds of millions have been spent by different companies and backers for a technology that hardly anyone needs or even wants. It's worse than a 3D TV with virtually no content available that isn't animated. Unless you really like animation, a 3D TV is about the worst waste of money you could spend a dime on, and the 3D browser is even worse.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
... Into the Future.
There. Fixed that for you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.