Web 2.0?

In your spare time, read this
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060901-7650.html

... True, true...

And you know what’s making me ROTFling about this? Is O’Reilly which defends this Web 2.0 thing because they follow the money, follow the hype. But it’s only clever technology, nothing has been added to the www scope (quite difficult thing to do, I believe). Only methods.

The real question is not whether a site is "2.0 enough" to be hip, but whether any given site is useful and interesting, regardless of approach.

That sounds sensible to me. As a web designer who’s not currently familiar with Ajax stuff it’s also reassuring.

The web has always been the premier place for hype and neologism... web 2.0 is not a revolution, but it’s not just new methods to do things : it’s also new user experience that derives from those methods.

Of course, this only happens when those methods are properly used. For me, it means starting from the user’s need, not playing with your new toy like some designer’s did with Flash. The same goes for webstandards : I don’t build compliant websites only because it’s the smart way to go, but also because it’s added value for the user (because he can use his PDA or Phone to surf, get better ranking on search engines... etc).

If anything, for me web 2.0 will really be about bettering user experience through smart use of new methods.

I agree with Tim in the fact that the whole "Web 2.0" thing is more jargon and is not a term that has any coherent meaning. Hell, you could say that AJAX suffers from the same thing...but the difference is that AJAX does have alot of meaning behind it. Now, if I was to give "Web 2.0" some distinctive meaning I would put it like this...

A site that follows the philosophy of "Web 2.0" would consist of the following methods and trains of thought:

• Strict use of current web standards.
• High degree of accessibility and useability.
• Functionality that moves away from the typical page-by-page model into something that resembles a real application.

These are my top three and pretty much emcompasses just about everything else under the sun.

Very nice summary, and I am very much in agreement there

Like anything, it has the meaning that consensus applies to it. And Bravado’s three points are a solid definition that would find much agreement.

I’m perplexed by claims that this is insufficient for a "2.0" - just because Web 2.0 does what Web 1.0 did, and was supposed to do, it doesn’t mean that it 2.0 has to be *radically* different. I mean, compare IE 6 to IE 5.5. Or Word 6 to Word 5. The core functionality isn’t going to change - that’s the "Web" bit. The meaning of "Web" will always be the same, as will "Word".

Why *would* Web 2.0 be anything much more than some hype, some new features and a polish of something that essentially covers the same ground? A move from 1 to 2 is not a total rewrite of all the rules and complete reimagining of basic concepts - this is computing, not Highlander movies.

But the problem is of course not "2.0" as such but the allocation of version numbers to something which is one consistent flow - a web that has been getting webbier for years.

Web 2.0 isn’t a second film. It isn’t a newly boxed product. It’s just the next generation - an ambitious generation who have learned from those who came before them.

I don’t think the web can be compared to a software, most cause the web is the objective, not the tool.

We, all, aim to connect all the people. We do this when writing standard compliant, accessible code and when using standard technologies, like TCP/IP. This makes us "more connected", because it’s easier for others to connect to us. This is why we all need standards. With standards I know I can read your site. With standards we empower the web to be "more web". Only this create the web, not the technology under. You and I are connected if we can use the same language to exchange information. Dot. Since the language is the same, we are connected.
But standards are not a new thing.

I completely disagree on functionality makes an advanced site. Nothing can’t make me think a site needs to do what is necessary to convey its information in the best way. It can be efficient and effective without looking like an application, and I can’t say it’s an old site only because it doesn’t rely on live data or drag-and-drop or any technology that site doesn’t need to do its job well.

Oh and don’t forget that now, and forever, content is king. The print has 2 dimension: forward and backward, like a book or a magazine. The www added a dimension: depth. Now we can transform a word to a link to give more information on that word.
This was the huge step! This is what gave us a new way to represent information, organize it, serve it and in general do what we do with it!
Until another enlightning step forward like the previous one is made, this will always be "only" the web. Because there’s nothing new by now.
We are all doing the same thing, the same manner.
We have a new car, but we’re still driving to reach our goal: and until our goal is the same, we can only drive to get there.

PS: this are just my 2 cents, my vision.

Honestly, I don’t think anyone of you has got the point yet: The difference between Web 1.0 and 2.0 is not about mere technology or standards, it’s about the "social" dimension: 1.0 was mainly a distribution channel whereas 2.0 is intended to be an exchange channel. Obviously, forums are not a genuine "2.0" invention, but the difference is made by making forums and other mechanisms like that (basically: sharing your own personal stuff) the leading paradigm for the web as a whole. It’s not focused on reading any more, but on writing and personalization - to put it in a very simplified way.
Ajax is something quite different, just a new member of the toolbox, in some ways related to this new approach, but not directly, since 2.0 does not deal with the tools but with the aims... and Ajax has as much to contribute to distribution-sites as to collaboration-sites.

To put it even shorter:
1.0 == document (read)
2.0 == database (select/update/insert)

I have found a bit of caution advisable here. People can be lulled by the slick Ajax interface into forgetting that this is still the Web, and their application’s core is still their web browser. There are things that a Web app can do that a desktop app can’t, but there are also things that it cannot do that a similar desktop app can. A client can begin to feel that he is not getting his money’s worth, demanding "But my ApplicationX does this, why doesn’t your ApplicationY that I paid for do this too?"

For example, I have a client who wants to be able to directly get data from a local embedded MSSQL application and publish it to their website, and edit the web version online and have the results update the local MSSQL database. The very expensive desktop application they have is hooked into Word and Excel and does it from those programs, so why can’t my web application do the same? That nice, slick AJAX-based inline data grid editing app looks enough like an Excel clone that they can’t understand why you can’t do that. I suppose with .net it could, but I didn’t contract to do .net. The thought makes my blood run cold

If it’s any consolation, I’ve had a client get confused the other way - wondering why when she took over another employee’s PC and changed the email details on Outlook from Bob to Laura, she still had all Bob’s mail when she opened up Outlook. She’d previously only used Webmail.

And yes, people will happily pay thousands for a custom application, yet expect a website to do the same thing for next to nothing.