Re: [vwrap] Technical basis for VW client in a web browser?

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Yes, I was looking for technical reasons why a VW client implemented in a
web browser would benefit in technical ways from such a choice.  I am aware
of the often-touted *business reasons* since they have been mentioned many
times in our AWG group, but business reasons collapse when they are not
supported by technical adequacy.  It becomes a failed proposition if the
perceived business advantages cannot actually be attained for practical
reasons.

One common example of business-led wishful thinking that isn't supported by
the technology is the idea that in-browser clients mean "no downloads" and
hence present one less barrier to VW popularity.  That would be the case if
one could implement a VW client in so little Javascript that its download
time isn't obvious to the user, but this of course is not the case (except
for little demo clients).  Real, usable, fully functional VW clients require
a lot of code, and you can't make that requirement disappear by using
Javascript and a browser.

This is why I've often said in the AWG group that a tiny "taster" client
with the barest subset of functionality might have a chance in browsers, but
that the idea doesn't have any clear merit if you try to go beyond that.
Virtual worlds are very complex because they are hugely flexible
environments, and as a result they require very complex human interfaces to
take good advantage of them.  Web-based users would almost immediately
discover that their small taster client is just not good enough.
("TANSTAAFL" comes to mind.)

So yes, what I'm looking for here are some substantive technical reasons for
pursuing the browser route for VW clients beyond small, cut-down
introductory ones.  So far I've not seen any good technical reasons for it
at all, and in contrast, technical reasons why it could be a *bad* host
platform are abundant.


Morgaine.





======================================

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Dahlia Trimble <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> A technical assessment supporting it? Do you mean what technologies might
> be used to implement it?
>
> If you're interested in justification, I suspect it's more of a
> business/marketing decision than a technical one. Could be something along
> the lines of providing initial exposure of virtual worlds to those who may
> hesitate at downloading and installing a separate client for something they
> aren't familiar with. Once they decide they are interested then they may be
> enticed to install a full client. Business/marketing professionals should
> have the necessary tools to do a quantitative assessment supporting such a
> concept.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>> Has anyone seen a well argued technical assessment supporting the concept
>> of "VW client in a browser"?
>>
>> I would be very interested to read such an article or post.  Everything
>> I've read so far doesn't hold up at all technically, and just highlights the
>> huge impedance mismatch.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ========================================
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Richard L. Barnes <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:
>>
>>> Folks on this list are probably better plugged in to this stuff than I
>>> am, but in case people hadn't heard: Earlier this week, Katalabs released a
>>> virtual world based on WebSockets and WebGL.
>>>
>>> <http://www.katalabs.com/blog/2010/11/30/kataspace-released/>
>>> <
>>> http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/12/kataspace-browser-based-virtual-world-built-with-webgl-and-html5.ars
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>>
>