Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3D Web Browser Draws Lukewarm Review

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the how-your-browser-views-a-sphere dept.

GUI 218

GreyGoo writes "The media release claims 'Internet surfers will be able to walk through their favourite websites as if they are characters in a computer game with the launch of the world's first 3D browser in Australia today.' However a review from someone who has actually tested the software raises important questions about the worth of the product considering the competing social and 3D products, and that sites have to be hand-crafted in order to truly support the new browser." A browser tied to a social networking scheme seems like a recipe for supreme annoyance.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

My 3d browser (5, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059203)

I already have a 3d browser:
1) Vertical
2) Horizontal
3) Tabbed

Re:My 3d browser (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059275)

It's actually 4D - you browse in time.

Then again, I'd like a 5D browser. I've always wanted to browse Wikipedia via Tesseract...

Re:My 3d browser (0)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059397)

It's 6-D if you think of the scroll bars as extra dimensions. The "window", instead of moving on a larger canvas, IS the canvas, and it changes as the scroll bar is dragged.

Re:My 3d browser (3, Funny)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059655)

No, to be extra dimensions they need to be at right angles to the others.

By your definition, every time I leave a room I enter a new dimension.

Re:My 3d browser (3, Funny)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059695)

By your definition, every time I leave a room I enter a new dimension.

Depending upon who built your house, that could be true...

Re:My 3d browser (0, Offtopic)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060467)

Dr is that you?

Re:My 3d browser (3, Funny)

Miseph (979059) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060633)

Yeah, Escher was a lousy fucking architect.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059821)

to be extra dimensions they need to be at right angles to the others

They are at right angles to the others. It just looks like they aren't because a slight movement in the extra dimension appears to be a shift in the content presented in the "window".

Think of it this way... with a screen capture program, you could create a video of you scrolling the page. This would basically link the time and scroll dimensions. The fact that this is possible implies that scrolling is an added dimension.

By your definition, every time I leave a room I enter a new dimension.

No, more like a RPG game where "YOU ARE IN AN EMPTY ROOM. THERE ARE DOORS TO THE NORTH AND WEST. > GO NORTH. YOU GO NORTH. YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A BLUE ROOM. THERE IS A TABLE ON THE EAST WALL. THERE ARE DOORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH." Have you moved? No, your perception simply changed to simulate movement. Your "window" hasn't really moved, it only changed the image it presents.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059853)

Depending on your point of view, the scrollbars (left/right, top/down) could be length and width making up the base of a cube.

Then the tabs are cross-sectional layers going up the height of a cube.

A similar example would be blueprints of a simple rectangular building, where each page is another "floor" of the building. The whole set would represent a 3D model via multiple 2D images.

Re:My 3d browser (2, Informative)

melikamp (631205) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060099)

Actually, we only need that the basic vectors are linearly independent.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059759)

It's 6-D if you think of the scroll bars as extra dimensions.

The scroll bars were already covered by horizontal and vertical in the OP.

Re:My 3d browser (0)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059889)

No they weren't. They're a virtualization of horizontal and vertical accomplished by adding variables, ScrollX and ScrollY, which change the static content in the window to simulate scrolling in a larger-than-physically-possible document.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059953)

Actually, think of it like this. Imagine you're trying to identify a single pixel. The value of that pixel will depend on a number of variables, all of which are dimensions.

  • screen x
  • screen y
  • tab number
  • time (e.g. if there's a video playing)
  • scroll x
  • scroll y

Change any one variable, and you get a different pixel.

In fact, since my browser allows not only tabs but separate windows, "window number" would be another dimension as well, bringing the total to 7.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060279)

In fact, since my browser allows not only tabs but separate windows, "window number" would be another dimension as well, bringing the total to 7.

Tab dimension would uniquely provide that, as you can't have a tab on more than one window.

Re:My 3d browser (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060309)

You could combine "tab" with "window" and create a group containing both, but you'd lose the window.tabs[] hierarchy.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

hclewk (1248568) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060403)

However, since screenX + scrollX is always equal to documentX, they are simply vectors of the same dimension, not separate dimensions.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060475)

Only if you imagine a virtual plane that's being scrolled. If you imagine a fixed window that changes, they're separate.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

hclewk (1248568) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060703)

Imagine? Are we talking about some random concoction in your head or the web browser I am current staring at? Web browsers are virtual planes. End of story. When the scrollX increases by 1, every pixel on my screen moves over to the left by 1. If it was a fixed window that changes, then every time the scrollX increased by 1, I would see an entirely new set of pixels, not the previous set translated to the left.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

Grokmoo (1180039) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060775)

You do not need this many variables, however. One definition of dimension is the smallest number of variables you need to span a set. For example, the following would work:
  • screen x + scroll x
  • screen y + scroll y
  • tab number
  • time

Re:My 3d browser (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060209)

Think of scrollbars as time-like dimensions.

Re:My 3d browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059329)

I have a 4D browser. My homepage is the Wayback Machine.

Re:My 3d browser (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059613)

Wow, ain't you a smart ass, boy.

Re:My 3d browser (2, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060029)

Your 3-rd dimension is discrete. The push is for a continuous dimension.

Re:My 3d browser (3, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060335)

It depends on how you browse. I typically have 1000 tabs open that I force onto the same row (I leave a few pixels for the frame) and I mouse-wheel through them at ~60 pages per second. Since my tabs are each 1 pixel wide, they're no more discreet than my horizontal resolution.

Isn't that how everyone does it?

Ouch!!! (1)

jason.sweet (1272826) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060535)

Now my head hurts.

Where are the jokes about porn in 3D?

Re:My 3d browser (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060509)

Based on his sig, it seems the only dimension he needs is one with Ace Rimmer (what a guy!).

Re:My 3d browser (1)

PCMX (1029966) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060049)

Mathematically speaking that is incorrect. While the vertical and horizontal components have a continuous behavior (obviously not really continuous due to machine representation) the tabs act as a discrete element and could not be considered a dimension.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

BotnetZombie (1174935) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060131)

You know what I would like? A tabbed sidebar. And a crawltree sidebar view while we're at it. I'll do it in twelfty years if no-one has by then.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

Kugrian (886993) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060371)

Tree Style Tab [sakura.ne.jp] for Firefox.

Re:My 3d browser (1)

BotnetZombie (1174935) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060645)

Heh thanks, should have known something like that was already there. Funny I didn't think of it before.Unfortunately the link to tabtree [tinybenki.sblo.jp] is broken. Does someone have a working link?

A better 3d browser (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060277)

http://www.spacetime.com/ [spacetime.com]

Re:A better 3d browser (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060495)

That is interesting...but is it all just eye candy, or is there some super secret functionality that this adds that will make life more interesting?

This is UNIX (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059221)

I know this.

Re:This is UNIX (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059483)

Hey look! The video window for the real-time security camera has a time playback scrollbar at the bottom for no reason!

Re:This is UNIX (3, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060055)

Does it fast forward?

How is this a first? (5, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059257)

VRML enabled sites have been around for years. It might be a more complex impimentation of a VRML plugin, but it hardly seems noteworthy.

Re:How is this a first? (3, Interesting)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059585)

VRML enabled browsers have not only been around for years, but also dedicated VRML browsers; I can't for the life of me remember what it was called, but there was a MUD client back in around '97 that not only did VRML mud rendering, it also had a integrated web/VRML browser.
it's going to bug the crap out of me until I remember what it was called now.

Re:How is this a first? (2, Insightful)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059667)

....and i just remembered (actually, I cheated and looked on one of my very earliest burnt CD's).
Pueblo / Chaco.
and they are still around: http://pueblo.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Compuserve did it too. (3, Interesting)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059845)

I remember back in 1995 playing with an experimental CompuServe client which turned the online service into a blocky cityscape, with the diferent forums represented by buildings, message threads represented by branching trees, and so on. It was fairly impressive for back then, and if I recall correctly it was VRML-based.

Re:How is this a first? (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060233)

Actually from way I remember when you went to a VRML site CosmoWorlds would load into your current browsers window like a plugin.

Re:How is this a first? (1)

Akir (878284) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060001)

Ha! I know! When I first saw the headline, I immediately thought, "Welcome to the nineties, Austin Powers."

Re:How is this a first? (3, Insightful)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060183)

I worked on no less than three different "first" 3D web browser projects. Since I haven't done that kind of work since 2001, I can only imagine how many other have happened between now and then. (Google [google.com] says about 2 million.)

It was pointless and awkward then, and they are now. Navigating a column of data is infinitely more easy than navigating a cloud of it. It's a paradigm we're used to. It's why there are (used to be) card catalogs in a library-because navigating a cloud of books is hard, but a column of titles is easy. Most web usability is bad enough in 2d, lets not give ourselves a 3rd dimension until we've earned it.

An aside: Every one of those 3D web projects I worked on back then also called themselves "Web 2.0"

oh crap. (1)

notgm (1069012) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059259)

hand crafted web sites? barf. i totally prefer the pre-fab plasticy kind we have now.

Been there, done that (1)

barbergeek (1131269) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059289)

Every time I hear about this it just makes me think of Microsoft Bob... shudder...

Re:Been there, done that (1)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059343)

You know I remember something like this back in 199, it had a second life-esk mall and stuff. I think it was called 3dworlds or something similar. Hardly the F"first" 3d browser in anycase.

Re:Been there, done that (3, Funny)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059369)

And yes, My internets have 4 dimensional properties! :D

Re:Been there, done that (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059823)

I remember that. 3d world's chat, or something. I remember you could go out into this huuuge open field, and there was a castle in the middle...

Re:Been there, done that (2, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060071)

Heh. Funny how your sig works with that post.

Re:Been there, done that (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060027)

My question is: Are there really that many folks that WANT to surf the web in 3D? Hell I still have to show at least one user a week that their browser is capable of tabs so they don't open a bazillion windows with the thing,so I really can't see anybody but maybe kids playing with this thing. And who is going to want to recode their website to support a niche that tiny? Plus,considering how crowded the browser space is now unless they have some bucks to advertise this thing I can't really see Joe Average ever even hearing of its existence. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Been there, done that (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060539)

In 199 AD, second life participants had to contend with Loki and Valkyries. No mall. At least there was quaffing and feasting.

Re:Been there, done that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059643)

And Microsoft Bob makes me think of Microsoft Bill, wiggling his ass -- imagine THAT in 3D. It'll replace the image of goatse in your nightmares.

Re:Been there, done that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25060109)

And Microsoft Bob makes me think of Microsoft Bill, wiggling his ass -- imagine THAT in 3D. It'll replace the image of goatse in your nightmares.

Scarily reminiscent of that episode of The Simpsons where Homer's trying to remember some important skiing advice, but it keeps getting drowned out by his memory of Ned Flanders wiggling his backside in his new skisuit.

"Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all!"
"Stupid sexy Flanders!"

No-one in their right mind could even associate Gates' version with "sexy" though :O

Snore (1)

bluesk1d (982728) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059317)

Are we sure this is from Australia and not "Borecelona"?

What's the point? (4, Insightful)

77Punker (673758) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059339)

I don't know what books or newspapers would gain from being in 3D, aside from children's books. My web browsing is really not very different from how I interact with printed media, except for things like posting comments. What would a browser gain?

I've never understood the drive for a 3D GUI on a computer. I have yet to see anything more usable than the current WIMP setups included with today's major operating systems.

Re:What's the point? (3, Informative)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059449)

Let me have a stab at it... there are 3D objects that we recognize in every day life, and by converting menus and navigation of the site to 3D it is simpler for some people to understand than the maze of menus. That is one theory anyway.

People think in ways more inline with a 3D world than menus and submenus. Even if most of us can get used to it, I've seen people pissed because they can't find the "contact us" link. In a 3D world, that would be represented by a telephone or computer or mailbox etc.

Yes, it would have conventions that most web sites stick to now as well, but it's just another way to navigate and interface with the information on a website. Right now, there is no compelling reason to start shifting to that paradigm, but such has been the case with most large changes to how the WWW works.

Why buy a new car with GPS, TPS, rear view camera etc.?

Re:What's the point? (4, Funny)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060689)

I've seen people pissed because they can't find the "contact us" link

That's because some sites actively try to hide it away. Ever tried to contact Yahoo! or Amazon?

In a 3D world, that [the "contact us" link] would be represented by a telephone or computer or mailbox etc.

...which would be hidden in the bottom of a representation of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a representation of a disused lavatory with a representation of a sign on the door saying, "Beware of the representation of the Leopard", which is in a representation of a disused cellar, with no stairs, represented or otherwise. You need to use the representation of a flashlight to see the representation of a telephone, a computer, or a mailbox.

Re:What's the point? (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060877)

In a 3D world, that would be represented by a telephone or computer or mailbox etc.

I would find that a lot easier to believe if the current de facto standard were to use a 2D image of a telephone / computer / mailbox.

Re:What's the point? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059803)

I've never understood the drive for a 3D GUI on a computer.

How else are we going to be able to say, "I know this. It's UNIX!"?

Re:What's the point? (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059877)

I've never understood the drive for a 3D GUI on a computer.

Haven't you ever seen Jurassic Park? When there's an emergency and you have to lock the doors, there's no more efficient way than flying through 3D space finding the right 3D box to click!

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25060735)

This might be good for hitchhickers in the galaxy. However, having seen it at InteropNY yesterday, it's much ado about little. Ho-hum.

Adobe Atmosphere (3, Insightful)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059359)

Been there, done that. Got version 1.0 signed by the developers and it was fun while it lasted. http://www.adobe.com/products/atmosphere/ [adobe.com]

Why... (4, Interesting)

mhazen (144368) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059365)

...must developers continue to inflict us with the 3D interface meme? Time and time again these "wouldn't it be cool if..." ideas turn out to be entirely crappy.

Who wants hand gestures instead of a mouse? Someone who uses a computer for 10 seconds at a time on a conference stage.

Who wants to have to wander around a rendered landscape to visit only the sites some software has chosen for them? My grandparents. No, wait, not even them.

People need to quit wasting cash developing crappy ideas, and spend some time generating GOOD ideas to develop.

Re:Why... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059533)

People need to quit wasting cash developing crappy ideas, and spend some time generating GOOD ideas to develop.

I know, I know! What about 3D websites?

Oh wait.

Already done. (0)

NRAdude (166969) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060663)

They are what I may describe as HTML Frames-balanced. Of course, all development today uses a Frame as nothing more than a reticle to redirect the Main as for a menu. VRML almost got it right, but to me it's just a communication stack visually interpreted visually the wrong way when a simple directory listing is all anyyone needed. Why do developers all-out go 2nd-Life and WoW on everyone? Anyone consider a navigation using speach input, a head-mounted display on one-eye and a 4-finger wrist-mounted key/symbol input? At that whyis Slashdot not on NNTP modes or is the unfiltered content domains too free-speech for consideration?

Re:Why... (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060321)

I thought gestures were designed for PDAs which used a stylus, not a mouse. I haven't kept up with the times, but a hand gesture thing would have it's place, even if everybody doesn't use it. Not everyone is the same and has the same needs. Even the same people will have different needs at different times. As for this browser, it looks crappy and stupid, but then you could say that about most things when they first came out: Linux, MS Windows (okay, still crappy), computers, cars (ever drive a Model T? I haven't, but I can imagine.), etc...

People need to quit wasting cash developing crappy ideas, and spend some time generating GOOD ideas to develop.

The problem with this policy is many ideas seem crappy to many people until they get into wide use. If you asked someone in the 1980s if they would like a computer in their home, they'd probably ask: "what the hell would I do with it? I already have a calculator."

Re:Why... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060365)

I thought gestures were designed for PDAs which used a stylus, not a mouse.

Think wireless gyro mouse.

Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059405)

Wow that looks incredibly stupid. Why do I want some Second Lifeish program to browse the internet? It just doesn't make sense.

The Intrawebs are for Pr0n (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059417)

Look forward to pop-ups!

How much do you want to bet... (2, Insightful)

imyy4u3 (1290108) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059437)

That the first website to support this technology will be a porn site? It will be finished in 3...2...1...

Re:How much do you want to bet... (3, Funny)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059659)

Actually, I'm expecting it to be a rickroll.

"Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you go"
What the heck? I'm stuck in the website!

Re:How much do you want to bet... (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060125)

Oh,that actually wouldn't be that bad. Now on the other hand,can you imagine a 3D tubgirl? Or a 3D Goatse that was rigged with a zoom that sucked your face into where you would never want your face to ever go? Now THAT would be bad. And I don't even want to think about the possibility of a 3D 2 girls 1 cup(shudders).

What's the point? (4, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059457)

I've always wondered-- what's the point of aiming for the 3D "social" browser anymore? It was tried, tested and failed in the late 90s / early 2000s. I remember trying out several in-browser (read: Flash or Java) 3D avatar-based chat sites. They were all universally crappy, but that seems to be a limitation of the technology. Or rather, it seems to be a limitation of attempting to use the incorrect technology when perfectly good ones already exist.

There exists, right now, several extremely successful 3D social environments that create virtual worlds for people to meet and greet in. Take WoW, for example. The interface is (compared to a kludgy browser interface) extremely easy to use. The chat features are fairly extensive. The world is massive, somewhat customizable, and very scenic. Oh, and there's a game to go with it, too. On the other side of the same coin, SecondLife has a large "social chat" following. The graphics aren't exactly WoW-level, but they meet or exceed any expectations one would have had of a browser-3D world. It is also far more customizable that WoW.

I'm certain anyone here on /. can (and most likely will) point out other 3D games / social experiments that also foot the bill

I think that what these interfaces have over the browser is that they are natural 3D. Their interfaces always were and always will be designed around 3D technology-- while a brower's main design is displaying marked-up data in a two dimensional, fairly linear (and asynchronous) manner. You can argue that you can easily put a 3D widget in there to interpret that markup language, and display it in a plug-in... but all what you've done is wrapped the problem in several layers when it didn't need to be. The plug-in can function much better outside the browser than in, and you don't have to wrap the client-server communications inside HTML or XML or whatever else you chose to send through the browser.

Re:What's the point? (5, Funny)

perdera (1175261) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059949)

There exists, right now, several extremely successful 3D social environments that create virtual worlds for people to meet and greet in. Take WoW, for example. The interface is (compared to a kludgy browser interface) extremely easy to use. The chat features are fairly extensive. The world is massive, somewhat customizable, and very scenic. Oh, and there's a game to go with it, too. On the other side of the same coin, SecondLife has a large "social chat" following. The graphics aren't exactly WoW-level, but they meet or exceed any expectations one would have had of a browser-3D world. It is also far more customizable that WoW.

Great, I can't wait to take a 20 minute bat flight from slashdot.org to cnn.com...

/global WTB port to cnn!!!

Re:What's the point? Bandwidth in part, back then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25060649)

As far as VRML?

Bandwidth was the "killer" of it then, I know... I built some VRML stuff 'back in the day' (circa 1994-1995, in the 28.8-33k baudrate modem days, & when I first "got out in the field" outta academia in this field/art & science)... & the bandwidth problem? It isn't, now.

The main "catch 22" may be that folks are SO used to present day browsing tools, this again, may not take (for sociological reasons, for lack of a better expression/term here), & too bad - it's actually PRETTY COOL to go around a site in little rooms that display diff. facets of an online presence/website!

APK

P.S.=> One thing it MAY have going for it, is this: To a 'complete newbie', moving around a website in a 3D style manner MAY seem more "natural & intuitive" to they, vs. 'hardcore/set in their ways, online oldsters' for example... after all - the Win9x desktop (yes, clearly this 'bit off of' other desktops before it from the *NIX world &/or OS/2's workplace shell) basically has you treat things like you would on a TRUE physical desktop you work on @ home OR on the job, & this 'took off' like gangbusters, no questions about it (vs. say Win3.x 16-bit "OS" shells on DOS via Program Manager & also the Windows NT 3.x-3.51 Program manager desktop too)... think about it, parallels exist! apk

Not this one. (1)

Apoorv Khatreja (1263418) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059493)

The concept sounds interesting, and I do remember watching a video related to this earlier this year. But seriously, we've seen things like these before - Beryl, Visual based search engines and Micrsoft Surface. They look good, but end up becoming an all-play-no-use toy utility. And if it something that requires websites to be crafted specially for it, I say it is far away from becoming an everyday concept and replacing our traditional browsers.

Being a Slashdotter makes you too cynical I guess.

I can't wait... (2, Funny)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059545)

...for a browser that renders genuine 3d solid objects, so I can code all my sites to literally slap everyone still using IE. But other than that, I don't care about "3d" on a computer.

Re:I can't wait... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060149)

...but in a pinch, a hologram would do (à la Back to the Future [technovelgy.com] ).

No Mac version is planned (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059561)

I was told no Mac version is planned, but may come into the picture if there's enough of a demand.

There won't be any demand, even from Windows users.

main screen turn on. (1)

floatingrunner (621481) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059591)

how do i get into god mode? i tried IDDQD but it doesn't work

Re:main screen turn on. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060171)

Did you try U U D D L L R R?

Re:main screen turn on. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060747)

Try a barrel roll!

Re:main screen turn on. (2, Informative)

timbck2 (233967) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060255)

IDSPISPOPD

A perfect fit for 90% of the Internet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25059733)

"A browser tied to a social networking scheme seems like a recipe for supreme annoyance."

Project Wonderland - Sun (1)

not_hylas( ) (703994) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059787)

Reminds me of Sun's Project Wonderland.

Project Wonderland:
Collaborative Environments Project at Sun Microsystems

http://www.leadingvirtually.com/?p=62 [leadingvirtually.com]

https://lg3d-wonderland.dev.java.net/ [java.net]

Project Wonderland relies on the following open source projects for key technologies.

Project Darkstar - provides the scalable, persistant server software infrastructure

jVoiceBridge - provides realtime immersive stereo audio with distance attenuation

Java 3D - provides the scene graph on which the 3D world and scene manager is built

Project Looking Glass - provides the 3D scene manager

https://sgs.dev.java.net/ [java.net]

https://jvoicebridge.dev.java.net/ [java.net]

https://java3d.dev.java.net/ [java.net]

https://lg3d.dev.java.net/ [java.net]

Wasn't this tried before (1)

Minter92 (148860) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059789)

I have some vague memory from around 97 of seeing a demo of a 3d web browser where the pages of the website were textures on the walls of something that looked like wolfenstein 3d level. It reproduced the navigation of the site in the layout of the level.

It never came out. I believe it was a university project.

Re:Wasn't this tried before (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060803)

I am trying to remember the same thing, around 97-98 there being a virtual marketplace style app....

SPEED - 3d may be good for entertainment (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059793)

but not for speed. most of the time we need speedy interaction on the web, be it business or other stuff. spending time with 3d stuff are only possible when going for entertainment.

1996 called (5, Funny)

barzok (26681) | more than 6 years ago | (#25059857)

It wants its VRML back.

Re:1996 called (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060189)

Maybe they can introduce a "push" application next.

Internet Meme (1)

bman (84104) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060179)

There are a lot of Internet Meme that are unbearable in 2D, let alone what goatse must be like in 3D.

I liked it better back in the 90's (2, Interesting)

Zerth (26112) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060333)

Stuff like Snoswell's cyberterm environment were much cooler the first time around. This is just the same old "tack a 3d setting on to fundamentally 2d data for no good reason" like html-to-vrml browsers. You want social browsing, add a freaking IRC client to your browser that autojoins rooms named after the url.

Either break entirely and do something new that requires 3d to interact with data that can not be properly represented in 2d, or integrate the third dimension in a non-obtrusive yet useful manner. Photos(currently a 2d medium) and the photosynth point cloud(3d) is decent example of the latter. If I could think of a good example of the former, I'd make it:)

This goes all the way back to Gopher!! (1)

morgauo (1303341) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060347)

OK, looks like lots of people caught the fact that this has been tried with the web many many times since the 90s. But it even predates the web.. anyone remember 3D Gopher?

http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/GopherVR.html [pliant.org]

I guess some ideas just don't die.

Let's make slow sites which work almost nowhere! (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060479)

Nobody likes 3D more than me ... but I think somebody doesn't understand the web too well.

Anything which:

a) Makes pages slow to load
b) Needs special plugins and graphics driver
c) Makes web pages really hard to make
d) Doesn't bring more useful info to the user ...is doomed to fail.

This thing ticks all four boxes.

3D web sites have been tried dozens of times before but how many 3D web sites do you know of? None.

First 3D Browser(s) (1)

changa (197280) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060511)

My experience with every "First 3D Browser" I have used over the last 12 years.

1) Download and go "Ohhh! 3D"
2) 10 minutes later get bored and frustrated with he interface and uninstall it.

3D Browsers (4, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060537)

Why is it that every time someone makes a 3D browser they insist it is the worlds first 3D browser? Maybe there are some trivial changes, but they have been out for ages. I remember ViOS or something like that from almost 10 years ago. It was supposed to be this revolutionary 3D internet/browser thing.

It's not a "3d browser". (2, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060659)

It's a 3d chat system that opens web pages in Internet Explorer when you click on the doors of buildings with names like "Fox News". And it's not even really a 3d chat system. The chat is a conventional-looking instant messenger window in the corner of the screen (in a separate top level window) and doesn't seem to have any relationship to where you are in the 3d view... which is probably a good thing: while I was in there I saw precisely one other person, until they started to move, whereupon they disappeared.

No user created content, or any hint of user-created content.

They were hinting that they were willing to pay for playtesters while I was testing it.

Microsoft Bob (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060719)

I think MS Bob promised to do that. It also failed miserably.

3d is fine...for some things (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060731)

That one scene in Iron Man where he's building the next version of his suit. He's got himself that neato 3d CAD program. Been a long time since I did any technical drawings so I can't comment on how useful it would actually be but it looked damn cool.

But for the web? Nah. Not practical or useful. The only thing I can see being remotely 3d'ish would be a representation of the webs pathing. However that's stretching it by a lot and still not even needed.

Sounds to me like someone only has a '3d hammer' so all their ideas will be '3d nails'.

So,.. (1)

GHynson (1216406) | more than 6 years ago | (#25060835)

But does it come with a Kewl 3D BSoD?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?