What is Web 2.0?
by Vince on Nov.21, 2007, under Random
I’ve been bored today, so I’ve scanned through many other blogs and forums, and I keep seeing people completely misunderstand what “Web 2.0″ is. I want to lay these myths to rest once and for all, so that these idiots can be better informed. Maybe it will change their lives.
“Web 2.0″ as a term was first coined by O’Reilly to describe the “next” version of the Internet. It’s pretty logical just looking at the words “Web 2.0″ that it appears to read as a versioning system. The Internet as we know it is, essentially, made up of technology and standards (RFC’s) that are over 30 years old. It is archaic technology which is barely holding together. It’s almost only right that we begin to change things.
What did O’Reilly mean by “Web 2.0″? He simply meant that the Internet has heavily evolved. In the beginning it was merely a one-sided information tool. If you needed to find information on something, you would search for it, read the information, and that would be the end of the Information Transaction. Nowadays you can obtain the information, rate the information, tag the information and even respond to the information with your own comments. When you look at it, that’s all the Internet is – a storage of Information on an International scale, accessible by anyone with an Internet connection. “Web 2.0″ is about the dynamic interaction of Information, breaking away from the previous “static” nature of this information. By this logic and rationale, you simply cannot use the term “Web 2.0″ to describe a single website, or a style of website. The term exists to illustrate the evolution of the Internet, nothing more.
When a lot of people hear the term “Web 2.0″ they immediately think AJAX and simplistic design. Honestly, these things have NOTHING to do with web 2.0 – and are merely one persons interpretation of how the information should be presented to the end user.
AJAX implementations have been available for many, many years, and are nothing new at all. What they do, however, offer to the developer – is a very quick and simple way of enhancing the information exchange by allowing immediate updates without page refrehes. This in turn allows a better and faster user experience. There are, however, plenty of sites out there that do not incorporate AJAX and still provide a very rich user experience. You only need to look at Wikipedia’s popularity to see this. It’s a perfect example of how the Internet is evolving, and improving the quality of information available to everyone. What use is your AJAX when Javascript is disabled? Most of you developers out there are unable to code unobtrusive javascript to begin with.
Simplistic designs piss me off. This is the classic example of somebody who has taken the “Web 2.0″ term rather too losely and has exaggerated the concept. Remember, “Web 2.0″ is all about the evolution of the Internet, and information exchange. Psychologically, design and layout have little to do with information absorption. If somebody needs the information, they will obtain it, regardless of how disgusting your website looks. As long as the information is there, it’ll be used. I agree, it may seem rather logical that an overly simplistic design with tags everywhere may make the information a little easier to read and locate. With advances in search technologies (Google), I don’t really see how locating information is a problem any more.
Tagging is another concept that has grown out of proportion and has now become an obsessively stupid idea, particualrly if done incorrectly. If you want a perfect example of “tagging gone wrong” just take a look at IMDB. A single movie can have over 400 tags, including things like “sarcasm”, “humour” and “girl pukes in toilet”. These tags are so vague and so non-specific, that the results could weild (and do in most cases) tens of thousands of results. Tagging is meant to isolate information into particular specific areas, not provide a link from one bullshit article to another. Imagine a recipe book that contains tagging. Imagine clicking on “egg” or “flour” and imagine how many results would show up. A lot, right? I rest my case. Tagging is a concept that few have any real understanding of, and use properly. You DON’T have to tag every single world, that defeats the purpose. Tag the KEY words, the REAL points. (I tag my posts in a sarcastic and satirical manner deliberately).
Unfortunately, as with any trend on the Internet, millions of people jump on the bandwagon without understanding why. They take this “Web 2.0″ term they’ve heard about, and they create their simplistic sites with AJAX and tagging. They advertise and try to sell it as a “Web 2.0″ website, and people…. the really gullible people lap it up, because they assume it’s going to make them millions, just because it’s simple and has AJAX. Wrong.
Your website isn’t “Web 2.0″ and it never will be; you just have AJAX and tagging. Your designs will never be “Web 2.0″ – they’re just simple and ugly, and probably make you more money because you have less actual design work to do. The INTERNET is evolving into “Web 2.0″ – and is finally reaching it’s intended goals; the provision of accessible Information to everyone who wants it.
Technorati Tags: web 2.0, web, o’reilly, you all suck, vince rocks, i hate you all
December 24th, 2007 on 8:50 am
The idea of feedback for information is used in wikis, forums, blogs, commented articles. It has been since…
Simple interfaces is what made internet useful. Google’s interface is 10 times more useful than Yahoo’s, Yahoo makes my eyes hurt. Clean page with some links and images is way more useful than garabage of menus, ads, jingles and whistles without any actual information. Users with a brain want INFORMATION (just like in a book), but not bells and whistles. What good is your flashy buttons if text is all wrong, vague and incomplete?
Interface may be clean and simple – take javadoc format for example.
December 24th, 2007 on 1:29 pm
*Sigh*
You’re not doing very well are you? Again, you missed the point.
“Web 2.0″ as a concept has nothing to do with the display of information – or any design aspect AT ALL. You can babble on about how the layout of Google is clean and useful, it makes no difference. People don’t use Google because it’s cleaner than Yahoo. They use it because its search technology is better, simple. Yes, the clean layout HELPS but ultimately it’s not what defines it nor has any real foundation towards the success.
December 25th, 2007 on 10:06 am
Well, in fact, I get it. (While I still believe that clean interface contributes much to usability.)
As for creating information by multiple parties, then that idea is at best strange. When information is issued only by trusted specialists, who have the guts and brains to run web site (server hosting, administrating, scripting, content checking) I would use it. MSDN, for example.
But when info is created on a public basis, such as wiki, blog, bb, forum – please, no. Such content is very underfiltered, vague, misinterpreted and misrepresented, and outright incorrect. Mind the signal/noise ratio.
December 25th, 2007 on 4:14 pm
And this is the exact typical response I’d expect from someone too chicken-shit to question the world around them, and unobjectively trust all information handed to them on a plate by these so called “professionals”. Have you ever even thought to question what defines a “specialist” or a “professional”? You’d much rather trust something on MSDN than on a blog written by someone with 20+ years experience on a matter, just because you can’t verify the status of the individual? In a fairly anonymous medium such as the Internet, how can you even logically assume that information isn’t provided by “specialists”? Your argument is riddled with illogical holes.
The beauty of the “Information Age” is that ALL information is made available to you – be it the commercially positive information that the same “professionals” want you to hear because it sells their product, their service, or otherwise lines their pockets, or the COMPLETE information (warts and all) which actually details both sides of the story. This allows YOU as a consumer, a potential user, or otherwise somebody who may blindly believe the bullshit you are fed on a day to day basis, to form a much more educated opinion because you have been given a larger pot to drink from, as it were.
Whilst I agree that in some circumstances vandalism of information may occur (it happens on Wikipedia from time to time), generally these are isolated incidents. This vandalism argument can be EASILY countered because of the ability for people to remove the offending misinformation and replace it accordingly. The process regulates and manages itself, and that’s exactly what Wikipedia is about.
How you can possibly see anything negative about this is beyond me. But then I am fortunate enough to be blessed with an open mind, unlike your paranoid and deluded self. But then you are an avid MSDN fan, so that’s unsurprising.
May 6th, 2008 on 7:42 pm
blah blah blah. why do they even bother to sound smart vince? its very entertaining. and again, you are the viktor. perhaps next time, i will become lucky enough to have a conversation with you myself. i will be anticipating the moment.