There are some interesting applications for Virtual Reality (VR) on the Web, and a number of hopeful future directions. Yet VR on the Web is not mainstream or widespread. Why has this exciting technology made slow progress? For one thing, users may encounter technical hurdles when they attempt to view VR. This is true on a stand-alone desktop machine, but even more so on the Web. More importantly, there is no VR content on the Web that everybody is dying to see.
June 21, 2000
VR can be broadly defined as interactive three-dimensional content. At its simplest, it is a 3D image of a single object that the user can rotate to see from various angles. At a middle level, it can be an entire scene or virtual world that the user enters and interacts with. High-end VR requires the user to wear special goggles and gloves that make the illusion of reality more complete.
Screen-based VR, including single-object visualization and virtual worlds, predominates on the Web. More sophisticated gloves-and-goggles VR is the province of games or specialized applications like military training, which are not typically Web-based.
The interactive nature of VR allows users to get exactly the information they want in an intuitive fashion, without having to search through databases or FAQs. The three-dimensional nature of VR can enhance the presentation of the information, whether for abstract representations (presenting data in a 3D interactive format) or for depicting actual objects, people or places.
Virtual Merchandising
Many applications are only in the prototype or demo stage. One that is definitely in real use is merchandising, where interactive 3D can give Web users something like the experience of trying out products without having to go into a bricks-and-mortar store. If nothing else, VR is a novelty that adds pizazz to an e-commerce site. It may inspire "window shoppers" to look more closely at products, spend more time on the site, or tell friends about the cool product demos.
Take the Sharper Image site (
http://www.sharperimage.com), which sells high-tech luxury products like reclining chairs that give Shiatsu massage. Here, Internet shoppers have been reported to spend 50% more time in the part of the site that offers interactive 3D images. Page views are also reported to have tripled in a short time after the introduction of VR product demos. Overall sales continue to rise.
Yet it's not clear whether customers are actually buying more products because of VR. And creating such VR product demos is costly, mostly because the expertise to create them is still rare. In addition, content creators typically make a substantial investment in software tools, machines to run them, and perhaps special hardware such as digital cameras that take pictures of objects from multiple angles.
We Are Experiencing Technical Difficulties
More websites would use VR if it weren't for technical impediments. VR is most convincing and pleasing when it uses realistic textures, lighting and sounds. Using those elements makes files large, and large files mean slow performance -- which could account for Web surfers spending more time in 3D areas on e-commerce sites. The upscale Web surfers who go to The Sharper Image site are likely to have fast computers with graphics acceleration that display demanding textures and lightning at a reasonable speed. For much of the rest of the world, realistic VR on the Web may just be too slow to be fun. In particular, graphics processing may be insufficient to present smooth motion with realistic shading and textures.
On the other hand, the limitations of computers and the demands of VR should not be exaggerated. VR files are not necessarily huge. They can be small if they consist mostly of vector graphics. A bit of code that says "draw box, size 10x10x10, color red" takes up a lot less space than even a compressed bitmap of the same box.
"It's been a misconception in the media since day one that VR files are huge," says Dan Ancona, founder of Vizbang.com, which is developing "Spark", a VR-based presentation tool. "File size is increasingly irrelevant, especially with the mushrooming availability of higher than 56K bandwidth."
In addition, many computers shipping today come with built-in 3D graphics acceleration.
But there are areas where limitations remain. Even the best standard monitors aren't big enough and don't have the resolution to give complete, detailed, life-size images of many objects, not to mention whole scenes. Color reproduction is usually inconsistent and audio is seldom hi-fidelity. These problems apply to all 2D and 3D graphics on standard desktop machines, not just the Web. And they apply no matter what the underlying VR technology.
Add to that the bandwidth limitations and possibly unreliable connections of the Web, and you have the potential for a deeply dissatisfying experience.
Inherent Limitations of VR
Problems of speed and resolution will be alleviated over time as standard-issue desktop computers gain speed and are optimized for 3D graphics. Higher-bandwidth and more reliable connections to the Internet will also become more common.
Even so, consumers will often need to get hands-on experience with a product before they are willing to purchase it. Barring cumbersome and expensive gloves and goggles, VR is still strictly an audiovisual experience. Even gloves have serious limitations, they can't provide a tactile experience of the texture of clothing. Nor can VR present the fragrance of a perfume or the taste of food.
The need for hands-on experience is one reason why car sales on the Web have been much sluggish(迟钝的): Most buyers want to test drive before they buy. It would take very sophisticated VR to duplicate the test-drive experience.
Another problem is that VR content can't be viewed with just a standard browser. You need a special viewer - either a special-purpose browser or a plug-in. That wouldn't be so bad if one viewer could handle all VR content, but that's far from the case. Instead, there are many viewers, each of which has to be downloaded and installed. Whichever viewer you've already downloaded, you'll probably need another one at the next VR site you go to.
VRML: The Standard That Wasn't
For content creation, each viewer typically has its own authoring tool. There is no single tool that a programmer can learn with any expectation of addressing more than a fraction of Web users.
A standard is needed to make it possible to create content compatible with multiple viewers. Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) was supposed to be that standard. VRML has been blessed by the ISO. It has been used in education and entertainment, and for visualization in medicine, engineering, and other scientific applications - chemists use VR to visualize complex interactions.
VRML has wide support in programming tools. For instance, professional animators create content using the popular high-end 3D animation program, 3D Studio MAX from Kinetix, and then use the built-in VRML export function to create the VRML file. Some cleanup of the VRML file may be needed afterwards. 3D Studio MAX has been used on a number of TV shows, and even in movies, so in the right hands, the result can be truly professional-level VR.
On the down side, VRML browsers and plug-ins tend to be large. That translates into long downloads on common PCs. For instance, Cosmo Player, a popular VRML-compatible plug-in developed by SGI and now distributed by CAI (
http://www.cai.com/cosmo/), requires a download of over 3.2MB for the Windows 95/NT version.
The large size of browsers and plug-ins stems from the fact that VRML has an extensive set of required features. That also makes innovation more difficult, because each new feature has to be integrated into and tested with a complex existing feature set.
VRML applications have also had serious problems with performance and reliability. That was the case with MyTicketmaster, an application that allowed buyers to check out the view from a stadium seat before buying it. It ran very slowly and was extremely unreliable. Ticketmaster pulled it from their site.
Problems of speed and reliability have been exacerbated by the fact that VRML was perceived as not being freely extensible in a way that maintained interoperability among extensions.
"That perception was incorrect," says Ancona. "VRML was designed to be extensible via externprotos. I was able to make this work for a customer: Intervista had a special high-quality text option that looked awesome in our browser and okay in Cosmo Player. The reason companies didn't work with VRML was, quite simply, because they didn't get it. They thought that proprietary [enhancement] would help them in the long run, although really it's gotten nobody any farther than VRML itself."
XML to the Rescue?
XML (Extensible Markup Language) is emerging as the most likely alternative to or fix for VRML. XML is flexible and extensible: It basically just describes rules that enable user communities to define the HTML-style tags they require to represent structured data.
Increasingly, market-oriented companies are simply ignoring VRML in favor of XML. Vizbang.com's upcoming "Spark" presentation tool is based entirely on XML and doesn't use VRML. The file format it uses is based on its own Information Architecture Markup Language (IAML) scene description language. The IAML spec will be published and freely available to anyone who wants to use it. (A rough draft is currently available.)
Vizbang founder Ancona says that he believes people will eventually want Spark to support VR standards. At this point in the standards development process, however, most customers don't care about VR standards.
X3D
The VR community has recognized the growing success of XML, compared to the very limited success of VRML. In response, the Web3D Consortium (
http://www.web3d.org), in concert with the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), has defined an XML-compliant 3D standard for the web: X3D ("Extensible 3D"). X3D extends the capabilities of VRML and provides a means of expressing the geometry and behavior capabilities of VRML using XML. It also allows programmers to bypass much of VRML 97, if they so desire.
With X3D, VR display can take place under various "profiles". There is a "Core Profile" or API that implements minimum VR functionality. (See
http://www2.blaxxun.com/products/blaxxun3d/spec/html/api.html for one description of the Core Profile.) Programmers are free to create any number of other profiles that can plug into the Core Profile.
The Core Profile is much lighter weight than the full VRML spec. Other optional profiles are implemented as software components to be downloaded as necessary. Thus, X3D defines a modular architecture with no huge, monolithic VRML plug-in to complicate use, programming and innovation. With X3D, the user only uses the profiles needed to view the current content. Similarly, when content creators test their content, they only need to test with the profiles needed for that specific content, not with a massive VRML browser that may have many features they don't need. Finally, when an innovator comes up with a new profile, they can achieve minimal compatibility with the spec by testing only with the Core Profile. The price of freer innovation is a potential for incompatibility among profiles that have not been tested together. Of course, there is nothing to stop the creator of a new profile from testing with other popular profiles.
As of early May, the VRML 97 profile was the only optional profile that seemed guaranteed to see the light of day in the near future. Nevertheless, if the vision of X3D is realized, the VRML 97 profile will be just one optional profile among many -- not the indispensable standard it was designed to be.
Although the specification of the Core Profile was complete, early implementations by companies like Shout3D (
http://www.shout3d.com) and Blaxxun3D (
http://www.blaxxun.com) were still inconsistent. The Web3D Consortium was hoping to ship an implemented X3D spec by July, 2000, but there were serious questions about whether they would be able to do so.
Content is Key
Standards and technical issues aside, the lack of compelling(令人信服的) VR applications and content remains a key problem. Before users will make the necessary effort and investment, they need to know "What's in it for me?" Compelling VR applications and content could inspire users to leap the technical hurdles to VR. Then money could presumably be made in providing VR viewing technology or in licensing VR content, and the whole VR industry would take off. So far, no one has created the compelling content.
Several applications do hold promise for VR. One hopeful direction is for creating interactive 3D visualizations of Web sites. Technical support is another area that seems rich in possibilities. Instead of telling a customer how something works, a support technician could demonstrate and then let the customer experiment in VR before attempting the real thing. Other promising areas are desktop and data interfaces, to help people organize their work, data, thoughts and presentations. That's where Vizbang.com is focusing its attention.
Two other areas that could get the ball rolling are medicine and education/training. If VR could help a doctor make a preliminary diagnosis remotely, a patient with a rare disease could be transferred more quickly to the correct medical facility.
"MP3 files are large and require a special viewer, and they're growing like wildfire," observes Ancona. "File sizes or slowness or extra software required, or whatever -- if there's a compelling reason for people to use something, they'll go to the trouble to get it."
Mike Hurwicz has written articles on computer technology for more than 15 years.