
Is it too early to consider 3D html? - kpgraham
http://www.blogseye.com/2010/04/is-it-too-early-to-consider-3d-html.shtml
======
jmount
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML>

~~~
jwr
Exactly. My initial impression was: "whaaa.... is it 1995 again?". But hey,
perhaps somebody does need it.

~~~
fnid2
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...

------
JeremyBanks
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.

~~~
sp332
Any idea what engine Google Lively used? I know the delivery was Flash-based,
but I'm not sure what 3D tech was involved.

~~~
hy3lxs
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo>

------
kpgraham
The article wasn't talking about drawing or graphics, but rendering things
like DIVs as Cubes and arranging standard html objects in a 3D space.

------
cakeface
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.

~~~
nkassis
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.

------
jallmann
No mention of WebGL? <http://www.khronos.org/webgl/>

~~~
nkassis
or X3D or O3D... the author should have done some googling.

------
illumin8
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.

------
jamesbressi
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?

~~~
vidarh
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.

~~~
contextfree
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, ...)

------
sniW
Researchers at UC Berkley and Microsoft Research have suggested that 3D
displays are bad for your eyes:

<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.

------
pixelcort
How about 3D CSS Transforms?

[http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/Inte...](http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/InternetWeb/Conceptual/SafariVisualEffectsProgGuide/Transforms/Transforms.html)

------
derefr
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?

~~~
gaius
This is a Unix system! I know this!

------
CoryMathews
isn't this was canvas and svg are for?

~~~
steveklabnik
Yep, canvas will end up having a 3d context.

------
betageek
yes

------
RandolphCarter
I want 4-D HTML so that an image of the sunken city of R'lyeh can be rendered
properly in all its non-Euclidean glory. Ia! Ia! Cthullu fhtagn!

~~~
RandolphCarter
Nobody will ever want 3-D HTML anymore than anyone wants 3-D movies. The
motherfuckers who down voted me will soon realize this.

Ia! Ia! Cthullu fhtagn!

