>> amount of information, frame rate, detail level etc. should be designed so
>> that it is operational down to 14.4 but I think actual speeds much higher
>> will have to be the design target. Within the very near future either the
> Are we empowering people? Is everyone supposed to be able to access
>this new world we are trying to create, or only the people with enough money to
>afford the higher end equipment?
I don't really see things in such altruistic ways as to think my job or
interest here is to "empower people" Nor do I think everyone will be able to
access this new world. They will need a computer that runs either system 7,
DOS/Windows or some variety of Unix. So My Tandy model 100 is out. I will
also not be able to use my
Toshiba 1000 laptop.
>I do use mosaic at 14.4. I expect to able to
>use this new system at 14.4 also. I don't think that is a completely
>unreasonable assumption. It does place large technical constraints upon the
No it isn't unreasonable, but realize that accessing this at 14.4 is going
to put you at the botom of the curve.
>design, but I think that if we design so that the lowest-end machine works
>acceptably (5-10 frames per second say), then we know that all machines will
>work well. This is also why I'm a little hesitant to support requiring a
>CD-ROM, or any other "specialized" hardware.
ti all depends what you consider specialized equipment. Not long ago a
color monitor was "specialized equipment" we needto look forward and accept
that some people will have to upgrade to take advantage of the new technology.
> Why don't we try to decide upon a minimum "usable" system? I think
>that the browsers will probably take care of things like dithering and such, so
>we don't have to specify 32-bit colour or something like that, but just
>guidlines that might help in the design of VRML.
That seems like a reasonable request. Since this is a multi-media project
why don't we accept the MPC-2 standard. Adding a 14.4 modem to the mix.
cheers,
Dan
* This space intentionally left blank, almost*