Google Is Adding a VR Shell To Chrome To Let You Browse the Entire Web In VR (roadtovr.com)

An anonymous reader writes: While it's possible to create and view specially built virtual reality 'WebVR' websites through today's browsers, traversing the web in VR means taking your VR headset on and off as you come across VR websites and non-VR websites. Google is working to fix this by adding a 'VR Shell' to the Chrome browser that will render non-VR websites in a virtual environment, and allow seamless transitioning from them to WebVR sites. Recent developer builds of Chrome on Android reveal both the WebVR API and VR Shell directly integrated into the browser. The company is also working on adding support for headsets like the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive on desktop.

Comments

Mostly a bad idea

[Iamthecheese]

Most information on the internet is best presented as text. Some is best as audio, and some as video. It's delightful that the latter two (and now VR format) are available. But the medium should be chosen by the type of information, not because it's new and shiny.

I've ranted before about Youtubers posting videos for every kind of thing they may want to communicate. A video of a static image. A video of a slide show. A video of a graph. A video of a man reading a paragraph of text. Only in that last format is it even possible for the video format to add value. And I've seen game reviews where the person is just reading his review text with completely unrelated and detached gameplay in the background. They don't do it because video is the ideal way to absorb the information. They do it because they can get ad revenue.

Now I don't have anything against VR as a medium. I love it! But converting static text to video format is as useless as converting video to VR format. If it doesn't need 3-D visualization, you're wasting bandwidth and making it harder to take in the presented information.

It's very simple. If you have formatted text with topics, text, and bullet points use a text medium. If you want to include links to related pages, use hyperlink medium. If you need to present things that should be heard (either for ease of understanding or because text doesn't easily translate to the sound) use audio. If you need to show visual information that doesn't change dynamically, use a picture. I don't think I need to go on. If and only if 3D pictures or video is ideal, use VR. Otherwise you're just getting in the way.

Re:Mostly a bad idea

[ortholattice]

A video of a slide show.

Of all the pointless YouTube uses mentioned, this is the one I hate the most. There is nothing that is a bigger waste of time, especially if you want to see a few of the pictures but don't care about the rest. What the world needs is a browser add-on that converts YouTube slideshows to a directory of jpegs.

Is today 4/1?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Really? Is it April Fools Day?

Do not want VRML or whatever this new 3d crap is. Do not want auto-video. Want per-tab audio on/off controls. In general, don't follow Firefox's path to Bloatville and we'll still respect you in a few years.

Something like this?

[Phishcast]

GopherVR?

snowcrash?

[Crispy Critters]

Snowcrash here we come. We are my sword and motorcycle?

(I like the idea of moderating /. with a katana.)

It's 1996 all over again

[SuiteSisterMary]

Will it support VRML?

Re:visual browsing?

[istartedi]

We demand a sound-based web!

I had that back in the 90s. It sounded like "EEE,EEE,EEE,EEE,EEE,SSHSHSSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHS, be-BONG, be-BONG, RRRRRR, RRRRRR." Then silence.