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
**************************************************
|
