Re: [-empyre-] internet 3d & desktop 3d

["Damien Everett" <damien.everett@rmit.edu.au>]

(cristano mentioned:)
> I always felt stongly that 3D
interfaces can be justified only (and I stress
**only**) if they add some depth. Which means not just
the obvious third dimension, but also:
- more information
- better understanding
- more sense
... none of
>the applications of 3D I'm come across so far
... failed to address
>one of the biggest unsolved issues: accessibility.

yep tho perhaps the purposive intent is the key in these issues...
I believe the idea-form is the true virtual reality, which can be represented in various environments... (text, image, video/sound, immersive vr). what is the message/experience you are trying to convey? (watch out for avatars bearing guns !) What about accessability for the blind and deaf?

Providing we stick to open standards we can't really go wrong, even if our x3d world can't be experienced by the majority of native Africans (YET), we still have done as much as we need worry about in that regard.

>The other day one editor of Create Online...his opinion that 3D
is just good for games.

Games generally seem to be the most  axcessable engaging "3d" experience out there... games create a sense of psychic investment with the "virtual system", the players psyche is in some way linked to the  presented media, to me games are potentially high art... why can't net art be more like that :) ?
daemn