Comments on: Pseudo-3D immersive tech adopters illuminate business decisions

By: Erica Driver

Erica Driver — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:24:09 +0000

Ben: I’ve found that people who have experience using rich immersive environments (3D environments like virtual worlds or immersive learning environments) are acutely aware of the limits to immersion offered by the light immersive software (e.g., ON24, InXpo, Unisfair). In contrast, people who have no experience with 3D environments find the light immersive software to be incredibly immersive; they are comparing it to a conference call or web conference.

The trade-offs for the higher level of immersion possible with 3D environments are ease of use and scalability. For some use cases (e.g., some business activity rehearsal and training scenarios), 3D is an absolutely necessary element. For others (e.g., large meetings and conferences) it is less important than ease of use and scalability.

Neither rich immersive environments nor light immersive environments are inherently good or bad. The trick is to pick the right tool for the job.

By: Ben Lindquist

Ben Lindquist — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:33:47 +0000

Settling for pseudo anything is counter to discovery of the major benefits of immersion, IMHO.

Ben

By: Erica Driver

Erica Driver — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:08:54 +0000

Charles, thanks for your comment. As industry analysts covering work-related use of immersive technology, we see business and technology decision makers considering both 3D and pseudo-3D technologies as solutions for meetings and conferences that have several hundred attendees. We are also seeing the pseudo-3D technology being used in other ways (e.g., for training)–a use case more commonly addressed by 3D technology. We see 3D and pseudo-3D technology as being on a continuum of immersiveness. We also see the two areas coming more closely together over time based on customer requirements. 3D immersive technologies will become more scalable and pseudo-3D solutions will increase the visual and collaborative richness of their offerings. Also, we expect to see customers starting to integrate the two. For example, attendees at a virtual conference would watch the general session presentations in a pseudo-3D environment and for workshops would go into a 3D environment where they have access to brainstorming, collaborative note-taking, and other collaboration tools.

As for the term pseudo-3D, I agree that it is not a perfect term. We’re always open to more effective alternatives. I don’t think “virtual experience” quite cuts it, though, because that term could very easily encompass 3D immersive technology as well as pseudo-3D.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:26:00 +0000

The term Psudo-3d although descriptive doesn’t give a very good first impression in my opinion. From a marketing standpoint I prefer the term ‘”Virtual Experience” coined and trademarked by 6Connex one of the leaders in the industry. These platforms should never be compared to 3d immersive environments. I see them as a “Bridge” technology for attendees, exhibitors, and sponsors. The Bridge doesn’t necessarily lead to a 3d immersive experience. For example the Bridge can serve as a meeting place for job seekers and employers. Psudo 3d (or fake 3d ) in my opinion looks at these communication platforms from one narrow perspective. Their use and acceptance in the real business community is a testament to their value, adaptability, and scalability.