Too early? I think this is a good example of "just because you can, it doesn't mean you should". There's little to be gained; any 3D usage I can think of would be much more well-suited to a specialized application than a document markup language.
> Google has not yielded up anything so I am guessing that it meets in secret for the time being.
I think it's more likely that they have no plans for "3D HTML" because it's not a very good idea.
This might be a case of the dunning kruger effect in action. The blogger doesn't know enough about the web that he'd suggest a fancy new technology called 3d HTML without even knowing that it already exists.
How many people rely on inexperienced individuals like this for advice about the web when the advice giver him/herself doesn't even know their words are two decades late...
I was going to say the same thing, and say that 1997 was the last time I saw anything using VRML, and that it was, indeed, way too early for "3D HTML" back then. No idea now that everyone has hopped on the 3D Movies/TV bandwagon in full force. Personally, I think it'd be difficult to make a plausible UI case for 3D, but that's me.
I'll never understand how anybody looked at all the amazing possibilities that were opening up due to the web in 1995 and thought "the next thing this really needs is a 3D environment!"... Oh well, I guess that was back when the 'Net was The Future and hackers were going to be able to kill you through your virtual reality headset.
I do like to use the "just because you can, it doesn't mean you should" filter like @JeremyBanks but I will say that the idea does excite me. If all browsers would support such a language like @jmount13 linked to (from what I see they don't?) I would love to explore the possibilities.
Many flash website and advanced java/jquery/css site concepts and designs that have wowed people in the past had elements of three dimensional experience, so I say why not adopt it and see where it goes?
They don't all support VRML because after a brief fad around '95-'97 or thereabout, VRML died a quick death when people got bored of it and realized they had no actual need for it.
The popularity of VRML coincided with a VR fad in general though, so perhaps it'd stand a chance again today with the resurgence of 3D movies etc., but I think WebGL is more likely to be successful in that respect.
I can see the VR fad returning thanks to the 20-year nostalgia cycle!
More seriously, I do think the standard arguments against 3D UI will carry less force in the not too distant future (i.e. over the next 10 to 15 years), because of new(ish) I/O capabilities which will allow people to make more use of real-world spatial abilities to interact with computers (e.g. motion/vision control), and allow more ways to use computers to manipulate the physical world (robotics, 3D printing, ...)
I think that there may need to be some extensions to HTML to support 3D rendering interfaces, but most of the changes should be handled in CSS. HTML is all about content. If someone wants to render their site navigation as a 3D ball at the top of the screen it does not change the actual text or links in the least. It is only a presentation change.
I don't agree. X3D for example give a xml way of describing objects. While text on a ball is one thing, what if you want to describe a scene? For example, what if the 3D is the content, not the text that goes with it.
I'm currently working on a medical imaging app that displays 3D models using o3d. In this case, you can use JSON (or google's binary format) to import description of objects and scripting is all done with javascript. X3D is similar but uses xml as I said to describe the objects.
You're far better off just using HTML5 WebGL. The reason is that the video card manufacturers like Nvidia are already supporting 3d through their graphics hardware. It makes no sense to try to support every possible hardware combination. From a hardware point of view, it's very easy to transform 3d rendered objects into stereoscopic images rather than displaying them on a 2d surface.
This is why manufacturers like Nvidia can already support many games in full 3d right out of the box. Just use WebGL and your app will support native 3d as soon as the drivers improve to support it, provided your audience has the appropriate 3d hardware.
If there were a way to make "3D websites" such that they were more attractive/functional/etc than 2D ones, don't you think some sci-fi/heavily CGed movie would have already attempted to demonstrate it as part of its MovieOS?
28 comments
[ 6.7 ms ] story [ 70.6 ms ] thread> Google has not yielded up anything so I am guessing that it meets in secret for the time being.
I think it's more likely that they have no plans for "3D HTML" because it's not a very good idea.
How many people rely on inexperienced individuals like this for advice about the web when the advice giver him/herself doesn't even know their words are two decades late...
I'll never understand how anybody looked at all the amazing possibilities that were opening up due to the web in 1995 and thought "the next thing this really needs is a 3D environment!"... Oh well, I guess that was back when the 'Net was The Future and hackers were going to be able to kill you through your virtual reality headset.
Ia! Ia! Cthullu fhtagn!
Many flash website and advanced java/jquery/css site concepts and designs that have wowed people in the past had elements of three dimensional experience, so I say why not adopt it and see where it goes?
The popularity of VRML coincided with a VR fad in general though, so perhaps it'd stand a chance again today with the resurgence of 3D movies etc., but I think WebGL is more likely to be successful in that respect.
More seriously, I do think the standard arguments against 3D UI will carry less force in the not too distant future (i.e. over the next 10 to 15 years), because of new(ish) I/O capabilities which will allow people to make more use of real-world spatial abilities to interact with computers (e.g. motion/vision control), and allow more ways to use computers to manipulate the physical world (robotics, 3D printing, ...)
I'm currently working on a medical imaging app that displays 3D models using o3d. In this case, you can use JSON (or google's binary format) to import description of objects and scripting is all done with javascript. X3D is similar but uses xml as I said to describe the objects.
This is why manufacturers like Nvidia can already support many games in full 3d right out of the box. Just use WebGL and your app will support native 3d as soon as the drivers improve to support it, provided your audience has the appropriate 3d hardware.
http://www.journalofvision.org/8/3/33/article.aspx
3D HTML could be cool, but I'm a bit concerned about the possible long-term side effects.
http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/Inte...