Web 2.0 as an industry?

1. Poncho said:

I completely agree. I’m getting kind of sick of all this AJAX/Web 2.0 hype-o-rama. Sure AJAX is handy for solving certain problems, but it is NOT the be all and end all of web applications. As far as I’m concerned, XMLHTTPRequest is just another technique for web development, but should be used sparingly and only when necessary. It certainly does not warrant the ‘creation’ of a new industry. If it does, does that mean I can call my company ‘web 2.0’ if I use fading yellow boxes extensively?

Over the last couple of years, as an industry, we have learned a great deal in terms of styling and behaviour of web interfaces. Good old ‘static’ web pages still have their place with a prinkle of CSS and DOM scripting. In my opinion, the ‘stateless web experience’ is still a long way away, both in terms of technology and user expectation.

Cheers;
Poncho

Posted on February 12, 2006 11:25 AM | #

3. Small Paul said:

It is a bit of a shame, isn’t it? I thought the idea of Web 2.0 was “Okay, we’ve made our mistakes, now we’re doing things the right way. Working with the web, being usable, letting people get the information and use it.”

Thing is, when you stick a term on something, it tends to attract the hype-sters as much as the good guys. In fact, I may have even said something like that before, if a little huffily :)

http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archives05/2005/06/web-20#comment25

Not forgetting that you were right about the usefulness of terms like Web 2.0 for shorthand descriptions:

http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archives05/2005/06/web-20#comment28

But, I dunno. The second terms like that start getting bandied around to clients, who can’t be reasonably expected to know what we’re actually going on about, you get a bunch of hype: i.e. lots of talk, very little actual knowledge. And that certainly isn’t what Web 2.0 is meant to be about.

Posted on February 12, 2006 01:12 PM | #

5. Steph Gray said:

Absolutely agree - maybe it’s about distinguishing the technology behind sites labelled ‘Web 2.0’ from the key differences in function or essence?

For example, as you say, using AJAX, large text or even web standards doesn’t distinguish an industry or type of online service.

But it does feel like there’s something different about ‘web 2.0’ sites which are driven by social networking, sharing or user-contributed content, which support mashing-up with other sites’ data, perpetual beta, focus on the long tail etc - those characteristics in
Tim O’Reilly’s meme map?

It just feels like there are differences there in the user and business goals that deserve specific consideration.

Posted on February 12, 2006 01:14 PM | #

7. Raanan Avidor said:

Web2.0 is not an industry, it is not a technology, it might be partly a cultural thing, but it is mainly a buzzword, and as such it will go away.

Posted on February 12, 2006 02:36 PM | #

9. Keith said:

Jeff – The “user first concepts” that you’re talking about is exactly what I wish we’d see more of when it comes to Web 2.0 conversations. If it’s all about the philosophy (and I’m sure it is for many folks) then I’m all for it.

However, what I’ve been calling people-centric design goes beyond any version number, or a suite of technology or style of design for that matter. It’s building an empathy for how real people interact with technology, Web, Mobile – you name it.

These things are not industry specific and should transend trend (damn that’s the second time I’ve used that phrase in as many days) or hype. I tend to worry a bit, especially when it comes to my clients, that we can overlook what’s important (the people) to make sure were keeping up with the “industry”.

I hope that makes sense.

Posted on February 12, 2006 03:05 PM | #

11. akjensen said:

I agree with Raanan. If it hasn’t happened already, we’ll soon have scads of entrepreneurial vultures helping to “Make your business’ website Web 2.0-complient NOW!” It is all bull****, same as most buzz words.

Posted on February 12, 2006 04:02 PM | #

13. Keith said:

Christopher – You make a very good point. What you say is probably true, and really unfortunate. I’m not much of a programmer but it seems to me that if you apply the right philosopy (the one Jeff is talking about) it shouldn’t necessarily matter what your choice of language.

At least insofar as the user experience is concerned. We all know that it can matter a great deal in other ways. But using Ajax, while might get you labeled “Web 2.0” doesn’t mean your product is suddenly all easy to use, etc.

Good point.

Posted on February 12, 2006 06:37 PM | #

15. Christopher Hawkins said:

The project is most definitely “Web 2.0” from a philosophical standpoint, but will Cold Fusion hold up to the fancy Web 2.0 moniker?

Posted on February 12, 2006 09:50 PM | #

17. Keith said:

Geoff – Like Jeff said, who cares? Although, for what it’s worth, I’m sure your project would probably stand out in the Web 2.0 crowd as a great example of that philosophy. Trust me, as Associate Editor for Lifehacker, I see ‘em all…

Posted on February 12, 2006 10:11 PM | #

19. Richard Kendall said:

I agree, but maybe Web 2.0 is easier to sell to non-web customers? Maybe it’s easier than describing useful Ajaxian based software or social software enhancements?
It doesn’t make it right but there will always be barriers between what’s going on and what the majority of the public or the business world know or understand.

Posted on February 13, 2006 03:21 AM | #

21. David Drucker said:

It seems as if “Web 2.0” is partly an attempt to say that we disassociate ourselves with all things Web 1.0, insofar as those things were fuzzy business models, venture capital chasing guys anxious to ‘flip’ their company, and Aeron chairs.
On the other side, a better user experience, combined with a better understanding of how customers/users can contribute to the worth of a product or service is probably better than merely a break with the not-so-successful past.

Posted on February 13, 2006 09:38 AM | #

23. Jeff Croft said:

The real problem with the term “Web 2.0” is that some people still seem to think it means “AJAX.”

To me saying a Web site is “Web 2.0” is very similar to saying that site is built with Flash, or that this site uses MSSQL and so on and so on. It’s a description of the design techniques or tools that are used. It’s a methodology more then anything.

Sorry to nitpick, but this isn’t what Web 2.0 means to me at all. If I were to tell someone I built a site in the mold of Web 2.0 sites (which I would never say, but that’s beside the point), I would be talking about the philosophy of the site, not the technology. Technology is almost completely irrelevant to Web 2.0-ism, in my my mind.

But since you brought it up, let’s consider technology for a minute. Let’s take Flickr, one of the most obvious example of Web 2.0 philosophy. Flickr (as I understand it) is based on MySQL and PHP – tools that are clearly not on the cutting edge of modern web development (“modern” would be Python or Ruby with Postgres). Flickr also uses Flash in some places.

So how can Flickr be “Web 2.0” if they’re not using Rails?

In my mind, you can easily build a “Web 2.0” application with Rails, Django, PHP, Flash, ASP.NET, Cold Fusion, Java, AJAX, no AJAX – even with table-based layouts and FONT tags.

Web 2.0 isn’t about technology. It’s about the users.

Posted on February 13, 2006 04:11 PM | #

25. guillermo said:

I agree with Mr. Jeff Croft (although I don’t consider the use of Python or Postgres to be “modern” in any sense of the word) in that Web 2.0 is, or should be, about the users.

The term, however, is often misused, by developers and project managers alike, to label an aesthetic – a growing number of “robust”, “user-centered”, “some-other-buzzword-relaying-a-feeling-of-power-and-awesome-flexibility” web apps that don terribly unimaginative design elements – and the result of that misuse is a very destructive sort of confusion.

And that’s what concerns me. I mean, do we really like the direction in which this craze is taking us? It seems like everyone’s trying to put the same face on “different” apps powered by the same technology. Do you want to see gradients and rounded corners everytime you type a URL in your location bar? I sure don’t. At the rate we’re going, it’ll only be a few more months before the Banana Republic site looks like another 37signals product.

Posted on February 14, 2006 07:28 AM | #

27. Amine said:

Well, I see the web 2.0 as a new personality for the web, that acts smoother, thinks nicer, dresses hippie, and talks casual.

Posted on February 14, 2006 08:49 AM | #

29. Josh Johnson said:

“Sorry to nitpick, but this isn’t what Web 2.0 means to me at all.”

While I think I agree with Jeff’s philosophy of what Web 2.0 is (or should be), I’m pretty sure he’s in a very small minority. A quick polling around of what Web 2.0 means in a tech company full of smart engineers produced answers ranging from “AJAX” to “Client-side interaction using XHR, Javascript and the DOM” which was the closest the word “user” ever came into the conversation.

While my sampling was small - 3 engineers - I’m going to go out on a limb and say this is far more representative of how most people think of Web 2.0… sadly.

Posted on February 16, 2006 12:27 AM | #

31. Jesse Skinner said:

This post inspired me to write a JavaScript game where you can save the world by blowing up Web 2.0 buzzwords. Play Web 2.0 Buzzword Hellfire.

Posted on February 18, 2006 12:21 PM | #

33. Kyle said:

While I think the term Web 2.0 is bandied about a bit too much, and seems mostly to be used as a way of marketing one’s company/product/industry. Let’s face it, the Web 2.0 that we’re all bemoaning has also been a boon for a lot us in the industry who are riding the wave, building our skills, etc. I missed the first boom/bust, and the 2.0 label gives me a nice philosophy/technology/framework/etc, with which to discuss and build upon.

I’d say the web 2.0 industry is an industry which is learning from the successes of the big survivors from the previous bust (amazon, etc) and are successfully using modern technologies (ajax, css, etc), more user centered design, better best practices in coding, cheaper startup costs, as well as utilizing the edge competencies and trying to fill niches rather than try to be the end all, be all.

Just my .02, not saying it’s right, just one view.

Posted on February 20, 2006 06:42 PM | #

35. Michael Almond said:

I’m in a mild state of shock. Breath…. breath…. O.K., all better.

I can’t believe what I am reading. The majority of comments, as well as Keith’s post, make a connection that has been missing from our profession’s internal dialogue and awareness.

Jeff Croft and many others nailed it: Web 2.0 is about people.

Yes, technology provides the means, the platform, for what we perceive as a “new” iteration of the Web. Although the technology and its uses may be new, the purpose of the Web isn’t. Fortunately, we’ve begun to explore the deeper meaning of what we do and there is a growing awareness of what has always been a fundamental and enduring aspect of the Web:

It’s value as a social tool.

So Web 2.0 really applies to us. The rest of the western world has gradually been using the Web in the manner that it more like the original design. We’ve been providing the means; now we can consider and help define the meaning as well. This can only improve our work, our lives, and the lives of others.

How thrilling a change.

Thank you for this inspiring discussion.

Posted on February 27, 2006 12:59 AM | #

37. Chris said:

Web 2.0, hmmmm (what an interesting ring).

Yeah, that’s it! We’ll glom onto that; it’s very “Markety”.

Fact of the matter is that all of the posts are right in some form or another. But the new moniker “Web 2.0” is trying to do is represent a cool way of saying that we’ve made some mental leaps and we’ll use some “old” technology” to do it. Could they have chosen something better…? Of course.

What I do like about Web 2.0 is that it’s thought provoking. We’ve all taken the time to research and formulate opinions on this topic. Most all of us seem to feel that it’s somewhat of a sham… but at it’s core, it’s interesting to say the least.

For me it harkens back to 1996-7 when there was this same buzz for other non-business model / cool technology sites. BUT, the first person to figure out how to make money with a “Web 2.0” site (none yet… just silly mashups, etc…) will start the next wave.

For now, it just the Jack Tracker… which tracks the movement of 24’s Jack Bauer.
http://www.wayfaring.com/maps/show/4698

Posted on March 10, 2006 10:34 AM | #