Web 2.0
June 09, 2005 | 
33 Comments
You might have been hearing lots of buzz about “Web 2.0” lately and if you’re like me, you still might not fully understand what all the fuss is about. It’s not surprising as “Web 2.0” is one of those hard-to-nail-down, is-it-really-just-a-buzz-word things.
To help clear the waters Will Pate and his pals at Raincity Studios have started a Web 2.0 community site. There are several definitions of Web 2.0 there, as well as the potential for some discussion about Web 2.0 and what it means.
For my part Web 2.0 is about content and media. It’s about providing enabling technologies (that are Web standard and open source) that enable the creation and distribution of content to the widest possible audience in the easiest possible way. But that’s just part of it. It’s about access, reuse, redistributrion and more. Open Web services, syndication, and standards are all part of Web 2.0.
Can you define Web 2.0? What does it mean to you? Maybe an “exercise in clarity” is in order. Can you define Web 2.0 in 10 words or less?
Filed under: Web General
Keyword Tags: web2.0 raincitystudios willpate content
Comments
1. Hayo Bethlehem said:
I once heard someone say you should never buy a .0 product, because the bugs haven’t been ironed out. So I’ll hold out for the next marketing craze: Web 2.1.
Posted on June 9, 2005 12:00 PM | #
2. CM Harrington said:
A “buzz-word” implying the use and dissemination of semantic content.
Posted on June 9, 2005 12:02 PM | #
3. Small Paul said:
Yeesh. If a term doesn’t mean anything, maybe it’s not the best idea to use it. Waste of time, thought, bytes, bandwidth, oxygen, everything. Gah.
Posted on June 9, 2005 12:23 PM | #
4. Keith said:
Small Paul – I think it means something. I’m just not sure what. I think it’s safe to say that the idea and technology behind “Web 2.0” isn’t a waste of time.
Posted on June 9, 2005 12:45 PM | #
5. Hayo Bethlehem said:
Web 2 (please loose the zero) is just like “ajax”; marketing nonsense. Sure the ideas work. Apparently Web2 means that people finally are beginning to understand the Web 1 tools.
Everytime someone sees something brilliant, a new word has to be invented. Why?
Posted on June 9, 2005 02:04 PM | #
6. Harry said:
“Leverage.”
As in, “HotWebCo leverages Web 2.0 technologies, AJAX, DHTML, and Web Services along with a dynamic utilization of your enterprise knowledge management infrastructure in RSS format synced to our Podcasting Screencaster CRM CMS to … what was I saying?”
There was a clever commercial on “A Prairie Home Companion” some years back for Old Folks at Home Cottage Cheese. (Here’s a recent rehash.) Paraphrasing, the commercial said, “Old Folks at Home Cottage Cheese: now without arsenic. Other brands might not use arsenic, but why don’t they say so?”
In the case of Web 2.0, AJAX, and the other labels floating around, the premise is the same. A web designer can now say, “I know how to use AJAX and Web 2.0 technologies. Sure, other designers might also, but why don’t they say so?”
I don’t understand the need for the label. Aren’t we just talking about progress?
Posted on June 9, 2005 02:07 PM | #
7. Keith said:
Hayo – Don’t ask me. ;) But hey, the zero has to be there or it just doesn’t mean the same thing right?
And, frankly, I like Ajax – that term has actually helped me in understanding what it is. It never did seem like marketing nonsense to me, more like a simple, easy-to-remember term for something complicated.
I’m all for that stuff.
But when you’re on the Web people seem to see all sorts of hidden agendas and such whenever something new comes along. Why? ;)
Posted on June 9, 2005 02:09 PM | #
8. Keith said:
Harry – We need labels so we don’t have to say “Asynchronous JavaScript and XML” or in the case of Web 2.0…
- CSS and semantically valid XHTML markup
- Un-obtrusive AJAX Techniques
- Syndication of data in RSS/ATOM
- Aggregation of RSS/ATOM data
- Clean and meaningful URLs
- Support posting to a weblog
- RESTian (preferred) or XML Webservice APIs
- Some social networking aspects (share your data with friends, etc)
…all the time. ;) This could be for leveraging, or selling, or for easier use amongst people in the know.
Again, I think the main reason for these terms is to help define and easily explain them. I’m not sure “Web 2.0” does that, but again, the idea behind it is sound and I guess it works as well as anything else would.
Posted on June 9, 2005 02:14 PM | #
9. Jason said:
I like to think that Web 2point0 implies the realization of making money from “letting your content go”.
Posted on June 9, 2005 02:14 PM | #
10. JohnO said:
The only problem I have with using the moniker Web2.0 is that the W3C (IIRC) has already attached a fairly detailed idea to the name. So for us to use it in any other way only muddies the water we’ve been trying to clear by using web standards…
We are forming a cultural definition of Web 2.0, not the techinical definition, let that be known.
Posted on June 9, 2005 02:15 PM | #
11. Chris said:
I’m not going to seriously think about the Web 2.0 idea until we can look back at this period years hence and say, “oh that was the web 2.0 era.” in the same way we look back on the dot-com era.
What is Web 2.0? From where I’m sitting it appears to be a renaissance in web design and development. The jury is still out. I’m more keen on learning what the Enlightenment Web will be like.
Posted on June 9, 2005 02:47 PM | #
12. Harry said:
Keith,
I still don’t understand why one would ever need to say either AJAX or “Asynchronous JavaScript and XML,” even to another developer. I agree with you that labels are important. What I don’t agree with is the desire to create a new label for something that already has a label.
In the case of W2, it’s easier to describe the desired outcome than it is to describe the labels, bullet points, acronyms, and all else.
Also, I surmise that the chances of always using the defined set of W2 technologies are slim. That is, I will always use either a subset, a superset, or a subset of W2 plus other technologies in my web work. I’ll never use the whole set for every project. And if that’s the case, what good is the label?
Moreover, if I use a subset, is that still W2? If I use XMLHttpRequest, XML, and JavaScript, but it’s synchronous, is it still part of AJAX? We could both use the label but be talking about completely different things. In such a case, labels do not imply clarity or conciseness, just less words, and using less words is not always advantageous.
Also, how much time needs to pass before new technology is held for Web 3.0? And who decides? Because in October someone’s going to invent VCR. Who gets it, 2.0 or 3.0? ;)
Posted on June 9, 2005 03:07 PM | #
13. elv said:
Adding a number after “web” makes it feel like it will be outdated someday. It’s just like saying “modern web”, it’s just a point of view. Someday those Web 2.0 sites will seem boring and old, how will we call the new trends then? Web 3.0?
Same old software problem : you feel the need to “upgrade” to Web 2.0 even if your Web 1.0 site perfectly fits your needs…
Hope it won’t turn into a marketing requirement, like “Oh and can you build a Web 2.0 site for us?”.
Posted on June 9, 2005 03:20 PM | #
14. Keith said:
Harry – I hear what you’re saying. I don’t think any label will help out with all the semantic difficulties we have. However, I can say that agreeing to a lable, like AJAX, for a set of similar technologies and using that with other developers can help avoid some semantic issues.
If there is one thing in development that I know causes problems it’s semantics. Now, I can’t say these things help unless everyone involved is on the same page (which it sounds like we aren’t) but, at least in the case of AJAX it’s been helpful to me personally.
But then again, it’s not to hard to overcomplicate, misconstrue, misunderstand or undermine any of these things. It’s one of the reasons why I aksed for y’all to chime in with what Web 2.0 means to you. I don’t have the answer either, and it could be that it’s near meaningless. But I know lots of people who use it and I’d like to be able to talk to them about it.
Posted on June 9, 2005 03:21 PM | #
15. Harry said:
Truth be told, it’ll probably be part of my everyday conversation in a month. :) I just don’t like being force-fed, and every time a new buzzword comes out I feel like Ron Burgundy having to eat the cat poop.
Posted on June 9, 2005 03:39 PM | #
16. Keith said:
Harry - I think I know how you feel…I usually just roll with it, but I understand the stress that comes with feeling like your expected to jump on every damn bandwaggon that flys by.
Posted on June 9, 2005 03:42 PM | #
17. Oliver said:
Web 2.0 = Web 1.0 x2!
But seriously, I think its intention is to “clean up” all the websites out there - bring out the true purposes and accessibility of each website and application. While this maybe a nice organization, it is highly unlikely for the whole web to change. After all, I doubt more than 10% of all the web sites out there are semantically coded right now. Unless some browser giant or huge web company (e.g. google) enforces this to happen, it won’t, for the most part.
Posted on June 9, 2005 03:58 PM | #
18. Ryan Latham said:
Hayo - I bet you have heard that when talking about processors. Which is true. Never buy something 1 GHz, 2 GHz, 3 GHz, 4 GHz, 1000+, 2000+, 3000+, 4000+; etc.
It’s not because all the bugs haven’t been ironed out. It is because the company is too eagear to reach that destination at that point in time.
However I think in this instance we are well overdue, and whatever results of it will be near perfect. As opposed to 2000+ and 3000+ processoers :/
Posted on June 9, 2005 04:07 PM | #
19. Keane said:
It’s about … the creation and distribution of content to the widest possible audience in the easiest possible way.
Apologies for the paraphrasing (and taking this quote slightly out of its context).
As I understand it, this is what “Web 1.0” (static HTML pages, a decade and less ago) was about. Creation and distribution of content. Somewhere along the line, the “Web” became less about content and more about the technologies (hence over-use of Flash, no-one being sure what DHTML was really for, etc).
More recently, the technologies have bedded in. Flash is now used only rarely, and generally only where it’s useful and sensible. Separation of content and layout using CSS has become the norm. Javascript has shaken off its superficiality (I’m thinking mouse cursor trails here) and become part of AJAX (aside, I’m delighted with AJAX as a term – from my perspective (I’m not a serious web coder, so as a web user rather than a web coder), I’m aware of what AJAX *is* (largely thanks to real world examples like Backpack (and this Comment Preview? Perhaps I’m not aware!) et al), but I’d quickly get confused if someone started throwing Asynchronous Javascript at me (“Eh? What’s the difference between Synchronous and Asynchronous?”, etc.).
Anyway, coming back to what I was saying. The technologies have bedded in. This means that web users have returned to the original concept of the Web: content. We’re seeing this more and more in terms of the ‘content is key’ argument – you obviously champion it here, Keith, and Garrett Dimon has launched NotableWords, and you have people like Gerry McGovern who’ve been going on about it for years – but actually content means more than just words.
For me, “Web 2.0” is about extending content from words into useful interaction. It’s the change from the web as a static resource into a dynamic resource. Bulletin boards and forums were a precursor to this. Blogs and commenting have evolved that. But it’s the rise of web applications, particularly in the last year or so (Flickr, Backpack, and so on) that are really opening things up. Effectively, the Web 2.0 technologies are providing the common man with the tools to use the web interactively in the same way as the geek man was able to with Web 1.0.
I’ve lost my thread a little. I think what I’m saying is that Web 2.0 is essentially a cultural thing. It’s not about XHTML/CSS, or AJAX, or RSS, or folksonomies. It’s about a shift in the way people are using the web. And I’m fairly sure it’s got a lot to do with a shift in the demographics of the people using the web (broadband, increased availability, that sort of thing). So:
It’s about … the creation and distribution of content to the widest possible audience in the easiest possible way.
Posted on June 9, 2005 04:58 PM | #
20. Keith said:
Keane – Very well said. I like the concept of extending content. Web 2.0, as I see it, is about doing more with content and moving it even further from it’s presentation. You’ll notice many Web 2.0 “technologies” and applications are all about content. Flickr, Drupal, what-have-you; these things aren’t anything without content.
Posted on June 9, 2005 05:42 PM | #
21. Bryan Veloso said:
(Please pardon me if I sound redundant.)
I remember when a few companies defined Flash as being Web 2.0 in fact, Fantasy Interactive (http://www.fantasy-interactive.com) was one of the “pioneers” of that movement which as since fizzled.
I agree with you Keith, in that the internet has matured and now people are using it for what it was meant for, information, content and the way it’s exchanged. I also remember a few years ago when having a minimalistic layout was a rarity, but now it’s the “thing”. Weird how everything changes in just a few short years.
I believe that the connections between people and how people interact online specifically is one of the driving forces of this “Web 2.0”. More and more sites are being released that are about connecting people… the Friendsters, Meetup.coms and even technologies like Skype and Vonage. Look at the everpopular BaseCamp, that’s changed the way that many of us interact with our clients, giving us that centralized location to interact rather than the inboxes full of emails. The jist of the movement is how it is changing people’s behavior in regards to certain things.
When you talk about “Web 2.0” and the technologies associated with it, that’s just the means. The meat is the actual concept, like Keene had said. When the web starts to find another way for people to interact (like an evolved VGML?), then that’s when the internet will evolve again.
Posted on June 9, 2005 09:45 PM | #
22. Keane said:
… moving [content] even further from it’s presentation …I’d disagree slightly there. I think it’s about focussing on the content and making sure that the presentation works *with* the content. The technologies we’re talking about are all about presenting the content in the correct way (I suppose facilitation is probably the right sort of term to use). So moving content and presentation together – like I said, “Web 1.0” had plenty of content, that’s what it was all about. “Web 2.0” is about using presentation to deliver that content (and different types of content) correctly.
Posted on June 10, 2005 01:17 AM | #
23. Raanan said:
“Web 2.0 - Open, easy to use, interconnected applications and content.”
Web 2.0 exists.
Stop looking at it from the designer/programmer point of view. Look at it from the user point of view.
What do you want as a user? You want to be able to get/post information (text, images, sounds, movies, whatever) from everywhere (browser, phone, fax, SMS, fire signals, whatever) with ease.
The user doesn’t care about who it is built, he want use it.
Posted on June 10, 2005 01:39 AM | #
24. Abdullah said:
Keane- very well said. I am not really a webdeveloper / programmer as yet though i am aspiring to be one. However i have been exploring design and content for a long time now and i more or less agree with your views.
The hype around flash and javascript has died out so that they are used in a more appropriate fashion as far is useability is concerned. I think however now CSS has replaced what flash used to be, in that people are going crazy about it and using it just because its CSS, not always because of its benefits. Taking a look across the web shows us more or less the same idea put across into a css layout on most weblogs. There’s also a lot of ‘tables suck, css r00lz’ talk going around.
To me web 2.0 is the use of any single technology with moderation and using the strenghts of different technologies to complement each other.
Just today i had someone ask me how to lay out a form in css. I told him to simply use tables.
Posted on June 10, 2005 04:03 AM | #
25. Small Paul said:
Sorry, you’re right, I was a bit negative up there. But I think the instant a name is stuck on a group of things, hype is generated: hype being the difference between how excited people are about something, and what it actually does.
I just don’t quite see where you’d want to easily explain all the following with two words:
- CSS and semantically valid XHTML markup
- Un-obtrusive AJAX Techniques
- Syndication of data in RSS/ATOM
- Aggregation of RSS/ATOM data
- Clean and meaningful URLs
- Support posting to a weblog
- RESTian (preferred) or XML Webservice APIs
- Some social networking aspects (share your data with friends, etc)
If all we’re talking about is Doing Things Right, then I think the term “web standards” is more descriptive. “Web 2.0” sounds like marketing hype, and is very non-descriptive. It suggests all these things were designed together, and form part of a package. They’re not a package. They’re different technologies that are good for different things.
Posted on June 10, 2005 06:50 AM | #
26. Kev said:
I’m tempted to say that web 2.0 looks like nothing more than a typical web designers/developers blog based site.
Most collective naming make some sense - AJAX being a good example. Web 2.0 doesn’t really make any sense at all and seems more about creating a special club for blogging web developers. To what end? Whats it for? I don’t think these concepts or technologies really require a collective name do they? How does it help them?
Posted on June 10, 2005 07:51 AM | #
27. p auL said:
While the ideas behind “Web 2.0” are all fine and dandy, there is no need to create a term for it. Like AJAX, (who’s name I didn’t mind too much), it sounds like a buzz word for practices that developers should have been doing for a while anyway. Also like AJAX, if the term sticks, it will soon be misused by marketing and business people everywhere to make promises to clients that are completely incorrect. Possibly followed by a few book deals on ‘Web 2.0’. Which will all be out-of-date as soon as I coin the term ‘Web X’.
Every time a new term like this comes out, I can’t help but be reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes quote:
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little pratice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!
Is having a new term for every possible developer solution really neccessary? I can’t imagine me talking to other developers, saying “Hey guys, let’s build this site WEB 2.0!!!”. (If I did say that though, I’m sure we’d follow it up with some high fives).
Posted on June 10, 2005 11:57 AM | #
28. Keith said:
paul – I don’t see Web 2.0 being used like that at all. Now, don’t get me wrong, I see what you are saying and in general I agree. However, when refering to a group of like technologies (which I think it more than simply “Web standards”) it kind of does make sense.
For example, I could say “I’m working on a travel Web site that will be much like Travel and Leisure online, but built with Web 2.0 technologies.”
I’m saying that I’m going to use the ‘zine model and add things like rss feeds, built on standards, allow for user created content, etc.
I think the idea is that by saying Web 2.0 I’m suggesting a general scope of technology and best practice.
Posted on June 10, 2005 12:51 PM | #
29. p auL said:
Hmmm, interesting point. I’ll buy into it a bit more than I did before. However, how would that be different than saying “I’m working on a travel website, but incorporating web standards, RSS feeds and dynamic content”? Or even, “I’m working on a travel site incorporating best practices and the latest technologies”?
Casting all new technologies under ‘Web 2.0’ just seems to add a layer of confusion. Using your example above, does every Web 2.0 site incorporate all of the aspects listed? RSS? XML webservice APIs? Social networking aspects? etc…). Do other new technologies fall under the umbrella as well? or does that increment the number to ‘Web 2.1’?
Also, the incrementing/version numbering seems like a bad idea, both for the reason listed above as well as the fact that clients will be approaching, asking for ‘Web 2.0’ sites without any real understanding of what the technologies are behind it, because they believe if it’s not ‘Web 2.0’, it must be deprecated.
I could be wrong, but I honestly don’t see the terminology being used much, outside of marketing-ese.
Posted on June 10, 2005 01:23 PM | #
30. Keith said:
paul – you might be right. I don’t really know. I think part of it depends on who you are talking to. I don’t know many of my recent clients that I’d bust out a “Web 2.0” on…. ;)
Posted on June 10, 2005 01:59 PM | #
31. p auL said:
hehe, true. (but if you did bust it out, be sure to high-five them afterwards).
Posted on June 10, 2005 02:18 PM | #
32. Bryan Veloso said:
Well by doing that, you’d be getting a familiar blank faces look similar to what would happen if you were talking about “dynamic hypertext” back in the mid 90s. Then they would ask if it’s worth it to them and you’d say “it’s the best thing since the animated gif”.
Hell, I first time I saw AJAX mentioned I thought people had gone crazy and started talking about laundry detergent. I’m sure somebody’s going to come up with a more “marketing friendly” phrase, like how Intel and Nokia are using WiMAX rather than, “really large hot spot”. Or they’ll just keep Web 2.0.
Posted on June 10, 2005 07:15 PM | #
33. Jaqueline said:
This is good theme, i think you know.lean wit it rock wit it
mastercraft 205
flower girl dress
onlinecasino
lowes home improvement
amoxil
bang boat
mastercraft boats dealer
quantas airlines
madonna mp3
dog birthday cakes
royal carribean
cuckold
discountperfume
discountbedding
arimidex
cheepflights
economyairticket
Thanks again.
Posted on April 5, 2006 06:53 AM | #
New Comments Disabled
About The Author
is a writer, designer, etc. in Seattle, Washington.
Hire me
Links
Home | Search | Archives | Subscribe
Random Old Stuff
Hosting provided by:
The highly recommended Dreamhost!
