Thursday, October 19, 2006

Zeldman on Web 2.0

Nice article on Zeldman, the Web 2.0 Thinking Game...

Web 1.0: Joshua Davis on the cover of Art News.
Web 2.0: 37signals on the cover of Forbes.

Web 1.0: Users create the content (Slashdot).
Web 2.0: Users create the content (Flickr).

Web 1.0: Crap sites on Geocities.
Web 2.0: Crap sites on MySpace.

Web 1.0: Writing.
Web 2.0: Rating.

Web 1.0: Karma Points.
Web 2.0: Diggs.

Web 1.0: Cool Site of the Day.
Web 2.0:

Web 1.0: Tags.
Web 2.0: “Tags.”

Web 1.0: Bookmarking.
Web 2.0: Bookmark sharing.

Web 1.0: Pointless Flash widgets.
Web 2.0: Pointless “Ajax” widgets.

The guy's got a point...


John said...

Yes but....

Web 1.0>: Nothing really works that well
>Web 2.0>: Things work much better (and are easier to use) across the majority of browsers
Web 1.0: Rubbish visual design
Web 2.0: Much better (and more straightforward) visual design

However... I do agree to a certain extent - so why has it taken off now and is not the the preserve geeks like you and I?

Nik Hewitt said...

The web has changed. Evolved even. You know me and my ‘web standards’.

But "Web 2.0" is just a buzz word used to describe anything that even remotely lets the users meddle with an application through their web-browser isn't it?

Add to that the notion of users 'owning' the data on a site and exercising some degree of control over it, an architecture of 'participation and democracy' (that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it), an interface that's "rich, interactive, user-friendly" (most likely based on Ajax), and some degree of social-networking and tagging and you've got the 'new wave'. It’s a bit vague.

Surely the only change and evolution, really, is download speed? Everything else is a natural levelling out under a new lowest common denominator.

The ability to add comments and designing stuff in a ‘common’ way (the way we’ve already established and set standards by our own usage) but with the corners rounded off does not a revolution make...