Web 2.0 - bogus or not?
Monday September 22, 2008
So, I've written about Web 2.0 for a while now, but every time I've written or read something about it, a little voice in my head is saying "bogus!" (a la the Car Talk guys). One of the reasons it seems bogus to me is because people can't seem to describe it other than in vague adjectives - "cutting edge", "clean", "interactive" (which could also be written as "only in Firefox", "more whitespace than content", and "annoying javascript"). The only consistent thing I've been able to see in Web 2.0 designs is reflections. Everything, especially logos, has to have a reflection. But finally I've found a design guide that explains how to design a Web 2.0 design. Cool. At least this way I'll be able to create a page that looks Web 2.0, even if I don't think that Web 2.0 is a real thing.
Comments
Web 2.0 is, of course, not anything until you remember that what it is, chiefly, is a contrast between what the web looks like now, and what it looked like in the early days (1995-2000, say).
If you really want to see what the difference is, compare some of the pages on the Wayback Machine to the aesthetics and usability of any modern, popular website (such as About.com itself).
There is a distinct and definite qualitative difference between the two: and while I may not be able to say “what Web2.0 is in itself”, I can say for certain that it is not Web1.0.
I think that Assist. Prof. Michael Wesch does a great job at identifying Web 2.0. Watch The Machine is Us/ing Us (Final Version) on YouTube. I think that Web 2.0 sites aren’t just about fresh new design rather the separation of form and function, how is the code of the site implemented. Is it in a reusable format (such as XML) available for all to share or mash up. Also I would say the UI (user interface) is MUCH stronger for a much more enhanced user experience is that in itself isn’t just Web 2.0. Also Web 2.0 brings application-like experiences to through a Web browser like Google Docs, Time sheet software like Replicon (not a shameless plug, just an example), Apple’s MobileMe site, and others.
I feel that the interesting thing about Web 2.0 is that it is a lot of emerging technologies to be used on the Web and all of them are coming up so quick that I think they get tossed into this HUGE bag labeled Web 2.0. Its more like the next phase in the Web’s evolution than the next version that “2.0″ implies.
In the end I don’t really thing that we’ll know what Web 2.0 is until it has long past and we are in the next phase of the Web’s evolution.
…but that’s just my take on it…
Web 2.0 is not about looks. Well, not just looks.
The theory behind web 2.0 is that the “old” web is version 1. Now they’ve made the web version 2, a general upgrade to the whole web.
But the upgrade isnt to do with just big fonts and whitespace. Web 2.0 is about User Generated Content. (ugc).
Web 1.0 is all about feeding information to visitors. You go to a site, you read info, done.
Web 2.0 is all about getting visitors involved. So now, you go to a site, read your info, then comment about it, or add some of your own.
It is about simplification, as is mentioned in the design article. Its all about focusing on the visitor. Give the visitor what they need quickly and efficiently. Dont give them rubbish they dont want or need.
As a designer, its aggravating when a large company thinks they’ve made their site 2.0 because they’ve got a big logo, big fonts, and some reflecting images. The site still functions really badly, isn’t semantic, nor accessible, but they don’t care.
There we are. Rant over.
As (basically) outlined by Ollie, Web 2.0 is a combination of functionality and design. Functionality is an encompassing term which includes user interaction, accessibility, strict standard compliancies, dynamic features, and media-rich content. The Web 2.0 “look” is the product of simplification — and the idea of making everything look fresh, shiny, and new.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the “al la the Car Talk guys” statement.
As I’ve said before everything updates and changes, including web style trends and technology. Web 2.0 is simply a technical catchphrase, and hollow selling point.
Web 2.0 has a very different meaning for “designers” than it has for “developers”
For designers, it means all that shiny chrome that Jenn referred to.
As a developer, I believe it is an evolutionary stage of internet technology, certainly involving the separation of structure and presentation (using CSS). Also portability, via XML and usability on mobile devices and non-traditional clients (ie, not just computers).
In fact, I think we have moved beyond Web 2.0 and are somewhere in the Web 2.x era.
For me, Web 2.x means above all that web sites have stopped being static (or even dynamic) brochures. Today (versus 1998) users are contributing content, and modifying and organizing the content according to personal tastes.
Furthermore, the paradigm of publishing has changed, from the one-to-many dissemination of information in effect for the last few centuries since Gutenberg. Today, a web site may have a one-to-one relationship with a particular user. Moreover, the user can have a relationship with other users of the web site, on a one-to-one (buddy list) or one-to-many (forums, wiki) basis.
For me, that is the really significant change in Web 2.x, the relationship of the user to the web site and to other users.
Web 3.0? We won’t know it until we have been using it for a while. That is the nature of historical epochs. I think Web 3.0 may involve biologic integration, both in delivery and navigation with more ergonomic interfaces, perhaps without any machine? That is clearly well off in the future - say in the next 5-10 years, right?