I have to agree with Gavin's thoughts on the issue how Web 2.0 is
viewed and understood. Why close it off to a definition? People
broadly understand what social models are evolving under the umbrella
of this moniker.
James said:
>A better option would be to continue to work on getting the basics right -
>campaign for better browsers (and / or use alternatives), create, support
>and stick to standards and use validators as well as manual checks to
>maximise content accessibility for people and machines.
Of course this is important but guidelines and rigid standards do
nothing for a public that is hungry from information presented in
innovative and entertaining ways. This doesn't mean dumbing down, nor
does it imply sloppy web authoring, whether content or method of
dissemination (blog, podcast, fora, etc).
If we spend days, months and years quibbling over the minutiae of
standards, Web 2.0 will pass on and 3.0 will be here. I am not
advocating jumping on band-wagons, merely using the right tools for
acheiving your aims and if this is blogging then so be it [hardly in
the domain of ex-Flash monkeys!]
And I ask once again, who's to judge the "fundamental quality of the
web?" It is not a peer-reviewed publication, nor is it a library or
archive with collections and archivisits. It is a lifestyle,
emporium, debating chamber, and can be anarchy and supreme order at
once. Content on the web challenges the way we consume, create and
understand information and soon a generation will be adult enough to
know no different. They will be able to sort the wheat fromt the
chaff with ease in the same way we can (or think we can) with books
and newspapers [should we choose to]. No amount of validity tests
will change that _even_ at the behest of the Greak Maker Tim (who I
have much respect for btw).
Tehmina
On 17/02/07, Gavin Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> So Tim argues there is not a coherent definition of Web 2.0. I think
> he is looking to hard. Web 2.0 doesn't define a concrete,
> qualitative difference from something called not-Web-2.0, but is
> merely a label for a set of current trends in web application design,
> development, usage and economics.
>
> O'Reilly's defines Web 2.0 thus
>
> Web 2.0 is a set of social, economic and technology trends that
> collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet -
> a more mature, distinct medium characterized by user participation,
> openness, and network effects.
>
> and defines the eight "core patterns" of Web 2.0 as (I'm paraphrasing
> a little)
>
> 1. Building in network effects to create applications that get better
> the more people use them (e.g. Amazon product recommendations, Flickr).
> 2. Collecting and monetizing unique, hard-to-recreate data (e.g.
> Amazon product reviews, geo-mapping data).
> 3. Innovation in assembly - remixing of data and services between
> companies and sources (e.g. web services, mashups).
> 4. Rich user experiences.
> 5. Software that spans internet-connected devices, building on the
> growing pervasiveness of online experience.
> 6. Software as a service, continuously updated (e.g. google perpetual
> beta).
> 7. Leveraging the long tail - niche markets can be monetized due to
> the low-cost economics and broad reach of the internet.
> 8. Lightweight business and software development models (e.g.
> bootstrapping, agile development) used to build products and
> businesses quickly and effectively.
>
> Some, if not all, of these patterns certainly existed some time
> before the overall label Web 2.0 was seen to be applicable, but the
> point is that taken together they help capture current movement in
> what the internet is and hint to us on what it is becoming.
>
> That is the overall label. In specific situations the term Web 2.0
> has semantics specific to that situation. As a basic example, in web
> application development it would mean, amongst other things, not
> forcing the user through unnecessary page refreshes.
>
> I can't see why thinking in terms of Web 2.0 has to automatically
> imply a lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals of the
> internet. If I identify and label (and potentially attempt to profit
> from) current economic trends does that imply that I lack
> understanding of the basics of economics? Of course it's possible
> people can be distracted by particular recent trends to their
> detriment, but that does not mean that those trends do not exist or
> should be entirely ignored.
>
> Amazon is the best known example of a company that has, probably both
> knowingly and unknowingly, embraced Web 2.0 principles, from their
> Amazon product recommendations to their latest software-as-a-service
> ventures (Amazon S3, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, Amazon E-Commerce
> Service, etc.). These are all concrete examples of the Web 2.0
> principles outlined above.
>
> On 17 Feb 2007, at 12:31, J Martin wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Tim Berners-Lee's thoughts are also interesting. Good summary at
> > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060901-7650.html
> >
> > I'm with Tim on this one. I cringe every time I hear the phrase
> > "Web 2.0" as it seems to be nothing more than a marketing buzzword
> > if anyone can actually define what it means. We've had SGML since
> > 1980, XML since 1998 and of course all the effort (arguably in the
> > face of some market resistance) the W3C / IETF and others have put
> > into the DOM, SVG, SMIL, XML and friends, Atom etc. specifications
> > has always been aimed at creating a semantic web that's write as
> > well as read.
> >
> > Meanwhile, Internet Explorer 7 still comes nowhere near close to
> > rendering CSS properly (try the Acid2 test - Opera passes, Firefox
> > comes close), ECMAScript doesn't have an officially registered MIME-
> > type and websites are littered with basic coding errors such as,
> > e.g., Birmingham Stories (which I mention as it's previously been
> > the subject of an MCG presentation) having 607 validation errors on
> > the home-page. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%
> > 2Fwww.birminghamstories.co.uk%2F
> >
> > Accessibility is more than just presenting information in a way
> > that's accessible to people with impairments. It's also about
> > presenting information in a manner that's accessible to machines
> > (e.g., Google's indexing bot - almost certainly your most important
> > user).
> >
> > I fear that if we get caught up in the hype, we risk an expensive and
> > inefficient waste of resources and may get side-tracked into a
> > "blog everything" mentality that will nicely line the pockets of
> > former "Flash monkeys" but do little else to improve the
> > fundamental quality of the web.
> >
> > A better option would be to continue to work on getting the basics
> > right - campaign for better browsers (and / or use alternatives),
> > create, support and stick to standards and use validators as well
> > as manual checks to maximise content accessibility for people and
> > machines.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Kostas Arvanitis wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:26:31 +0000
> >> From: Kostas Arvanitis <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Reply-To: Museums Computer Group <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [MCG] Quick Introduction to Web 2.0
> >> This response is also very interesting!
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAVmB5dKZZ8&eurl=
> >>
> >> Kostas.
> >>
> >>
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Dr. Konstantinos Arvanitis
> >> Lecturer in Museology
> >> Centre for Museology
> >> School of Arts Histories and Cultures
> >> Humanities Bridgeford Street
> >> The University of Manchester
> >> Oxford Road
> >> Manchester M13 9PL
> >> Tel.: +44 161 2753018
> >> http://www.manchester.ac.uk/museology/
> >> http://digitalheritage.wordpress.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> >> Of Tony Gill
> >> Sent: 14 February 2007 21:41
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Quick Introduction to Web 2.0
> >>
> >> This is one of the best quick introductions to Web 2.0 that I've
> >> seen:
> >>
> >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE>http://www.youtube.com/
> >> watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE
> >>
> >> (apart from the music, which is terrible).
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> T.
> >>
> >> **************************************************
> >> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
> >> visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> >> **************************************************
> >>
> >> **************************************************
> >> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
> >> visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> >> **************************************************
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> > SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf-eu.org
> >
> > **************************************************
> > For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
> > visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> > **************************************************
> >
> >
>
> --
> Gavin Foster
> Consultant, Think Design, Inc.
> http://www.thinkdesign.com/
>
>
>
> **************************************************
> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> **************************************************
>
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|