Google Is Adding a VR Shell To Chrome To Let You Browse the Entire Web In VR (roadtovr.com) 59
An anonymous reader writes: While it's possible to create and view specially built virtual reality 'WebVR' websites through today's browsers, traversing the web in VR means taking your VR headset on and off as you come across VR websites and non-VR websites. Google is working to fix this by adding a 'VR Shell' to the Chrome browser that will render non-VR websites in a virtual environment, and allow seamless transitioning from them to WebVR sites. Recent developer builds of Chrome on Android reveal both the WebVR API and VR Shell directly integrated into the browser. The company is also working on adding support for headsets like the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive on desktop.
visual browsing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smell, baby. We want to smell it.
That would kick up Brazilian fart porn a notch... lol
Re: visual browsing? (Score:2)
That's a thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Brazilians are all about the bass, not much treble.
Not only is their female ideal bigger in the butt & smaller in the chest that typical NorthAm beauty standards but I've heard it's the place where you're most likely to have anal sex *on the 1st date* and their idea of lesbian porn ( well, for hetero male audience ) isn't much more than 2 or more women performing analingus on each other for 1/2 an hour
Re: (Score:2)
We demand a sound-based web!
I want my web experience to be rendered in Morse Code.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, on second thought I'll just call the sysop and have him tell me what's on the screen.
Re: (Score:3)
We demand a sound-based web!
I had that back in the 90s. It sounded like "EEE,EEE,EEE,EEE,EEE,SSHSHSSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHS, be-BONG, be-BONG, RRRRRR, RRRRRR." Then silence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to browse the web visually?
Uh... how do you do it?
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. I browse the web nasally.
It stinks.
Again? (Score:1)
Ahhh! It's VRML all over again!
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I've ranted before about Youtubers posting videos for every kind of thing they may want to communicate. A video of a static image. A video of a slide show. A video of a graph. A video of a man reading a paragraph of text. Only in that last format is it even possible for the video format to add value. And I've seen game reviews where the person is just reading his review text with completely unrelated and detached gameplay in the background. They don't do it because video is the ideal way to absorb the information. They do it because they can get ad revenue.
Now I don't have anything against VR as a medium. I love it! But converting static text to video format is as useless as converting video to VR format. If it doesn't need 3-D visualization, you're wasting bandwidth and making it harder to take in the presented information.
It's very simple. If you have formatted text with topics, text, and bullet points use a text medium. If you want to include links to related pages, use hyperlink medium. If you need to present things that should be heard (either for ease of understanding or because text doesn't easily translate to the sound) use audio. If you need to show visual information that doesn't change dynamically, use a picture. I don't think I need to go on. If and only if 3D pictures or video is ideal, use VR. Otherwise you're just getting in the way.
Glad you included the last paragraph (Score:2)
That last paragraph is key.
Sure, don't post pictures of text* and videos of pictures. On the other hand, just as a picture can be worth a thousand words, a 3D model can be worth a thousand pictures - in some circumstances.
* Come to think of it, "pictures of text" also have their uses, such as database diagrams, flowcharts, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Of all the pointless YouTube uses mentioned, this is the one I hate the most. There is nothing that is a bigger waste of time, especially if you want to see a few of the pictures but don't care about the rest. What the world needs is a browser add-on that converts YouTube slideshows to a directory of jpegs.
FRY YOUR BRAIN with Ergonomics of Doom (Score:2)
Sit up straight. Get your eyes the proper distance from the screen. That leaning forward slightly is killing your spine.
Sure your eyes are OK? You might need corrective lenses to do this all day without eyestrain.
Screen is a little sharper and brighter. Now it's bigger.
Got that CRT scan line refresh flicker and jitter out. Great!
Keyboard the proper height? Mouse fite comfortably? (Everyone should try a trackball at leastonce, works better for some)
Alright, now lets get onto fonts. Choose a good one as defau
Re: (Score:2)
For me, videos are good for tasks involving motion - especially where it's you or part of you that's moving - like using tools or sports/martial arts moves.
They're worst for showing you how to do something on a computer. You invariably miss a bit, try to go back but go back too far, try to jump forward a bit to save time but jump forward too far, jump back too far again and just run it from there. Of course because you're going through stuff you already did your attention wanders and then you miss it agai
Oooh- lookie! (Score:2)
I'm surfing the web on a computer in VR!
I'm surfing the web... in a movie theater!!
I'm surfing the web while white water rafting! Whoa! Look out for that log while I'm composing this message! Heh heh! :rollseyes:
Is today 4/1? (Score:3)
Do not want VRML or whatever this new 3d crap is. Do not want auto-video. Want per-tab audio on/off controls. In general, don't follow Firefox's path to Bloatville and we'll still respect you in a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not want VRML or whatever this new 3d crap is. Do not want auto-video.
Come now, Citizen, do not deny that Teh Great Google knows what's best for you.
You will consume media as they wish it to be done, and you shall enjoy it. Do not be disharmonious with their Advertising, lest ye be cast into the Pit Of Internet Explorer, where ye will writhe in the Flames of HTML 1.0 forever and ever!
Teh Great Google has spoken!
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody remember VRML? (Score:1)
We did this once. It didn't work. Had some neat ideas but way ahead of it's time. Maybe the "bookmarks as a mall" idea will return.
VRML? (Score:1)
Didn't people want to do this in the 90s?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but brick and bag style cell phones were horrible for vr headsets. And strapping a 30lb CRT to your head was put of the question.
What? (Score:2)
Just use VirtualDesktop or BigScreen Beta?
Your entire desktop is in VR, then.
Well duh... (Score:1)
It's a UNIX system.
Something like this? (Score:3)
snowcrash? (Score:3)
(I like the idea of moderating /. with a katana.)
It's 1996 all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for another sequel (Score:1)
VRML all over again (Score:2)
Hopefully this time the rendering will be better due to more modern tech. The VRML sites I messed with back in the 90s were awful and took forever to load due to the size of the data.
Jesus Wept! (Score:2)
Did they hire Elroy Patashnik [wikia.com]?
I'm fine with it (Score:2)
I'm fine with it as long as there's a way to turn it off. Or am I being to optimistic or naive?
Re: (Score:2)
There will be a way to turn it off. Until it's old news. Then, "support for a legacy option used by less than 1% of users, has been removed" will be a single item in a changelog.
Pop (Score:2)
I'm not really looking forward to the porno popups.
The most important feature: (Score:2)
I can't wait. (Score:2)
Samsung Internet for Gear VR (Score:2)
Hear that? (Score:1)
It's the sound of inevitability. It's coming on/before the year 3000: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]