Wikipedia talk:No 3D illustrations/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I disagree with the General Policy of disallowing 3D Images in Articles
While I am glad that there are accessibility-minded people here on wikipedia, you have turned the issue on it's head. Instead of speaking in the positive you have turned it into a negative thing. Here's what I mean: do we disallow audio media because some people are deaf? Or, on the other hand, should we disallow text because some people are blind? Of course not. Our goal is NOT to reduce the amount of media available so that it is accessible to everyone. Our goal is to INCREASE the variety of medias and methods that we include on wikipedia. Thus, while someone who is deaf might not be able to listen to an audio clip, but they can still read the article. 3D images are no different. While it would be wholly inappropriate to make EVERY image on wikipedia 3D, there is nothing wrong with a limited set of 3D images for those people that DO have 3D glasses.
It's about increasing the content of wikipedia so that it spans the MAXIMUM audience, not decreasing the content so that while everyone can access it, it has less inherent value. Oh, and BTW, I always have a drawer in my desk that has some various 3D glasses (Red/Cyan, Red/Blue and Chromadepth) because there is occasionally the image you have to use them on. Really, this issue is the same as allowing SVG images on wikipedia. Most people don't have a SVG enabled browser, but there is no reason to make the lives of those that DO less valuable.
If we would like to discourage 3D images as the primary article images, that would be fine, but for secondary images in articles, 3D images work great. Also, if someone here would volunteer to convert every 3D image on wikipedia to 2D I would have nothing against 3D/2D pairs, but as it is that is an unlikely alternative. --Ctachme 13:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- The proposal is not to outlaw the use of these images at all it is to stop them being used directly inline in articles. They should still be available to poeple like you who have the glasses handy. I don't even care if they are a "limited set" of images as you say, I would be perfectly happy if they outweighed 2D images three to one, they just shouldn't be inline in the articles in place of 2D images. Your comparisons are not valid. The images will be a click away, in your comparison the current situation would be the same as having every page immediatly start talking at you as soon as it loads just in case you are deaf. SVG is no comparison at all as it is automatically down converted to a format all browsers can display with no loss in quality. If the 2D/3D proposal was the one selected it would become the responsability of the uploader to provided a 2D version, I don't think this is going to happen though. --Martyman-(talk) 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's one flavour of the proposal. Another flavour is possibly to disallow them completely. Another flavour is to allow them with arms wide open. Part of what we're trying to do here is get a consensus on what to do. Perhaps it's time to ask folks to list pros and cons of the various proposal permutations and see which have strongest support.
Realtime 3d display with animation
Hi, I am new and my first post. I am currently working on a realtime 3d encyclopedia, display in JAVA 3D in PDF. The next generation 3d enabled reference source in 360 degree, would be good to have it here. 3dassets (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
3d encyclopaedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.37.98 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)