W2.0



  •      I think the main problem is confusion about what is Web 2.0.

    I have been on the internet since the days of Gopher and Lynx.  Down

    the road the web had changed alot as new languages and technologies

    emerged.  Web 2.0 is very distinct in that web sites are becoming

    more of a web service / web application, public/user editable, open

    APIs to content/services, and the mashing together of everything.

        I think some people are calling websites (their own or others)

    as 2.0 even though it isn't (confusion) and yea, definitely some

    sites that are 2.0 suck just like some people make crappy

    webpages - its a given.

         AJAX is a perfect example because it represents the

    integration (mashing) of existing technologies to create a

    new technique for web design.  None of the elements

    are new just a new way of mixing existing elements

    together - which is the essence of Web 2.0.







  • Web 2.0 is very distinct in that web sites are becoming

    more of a web service / web application, public/user editable, open

    APIs to content/services, and the mashing together of everything.


    And exactly which of these features are supposed to be new?



  • @ammoQ said:

    And exactly which of these features are supposed to be new?


    Not necessarily new, just standardised now. People have been using DHTML for a good while now, but as a proper technology it couldn't really take off until browser DOMs were all standard.

    Sometimes agreeing that the way 90% of people are doing things is the best way is good for everyone. The remaining 10% who are trying to do something stupid (or being told to reinvent the wheel by their bosses) can fix on a proper way of approaching the problem; and newcomers can latch onto the name. Even having a name is one step forward.

    This all presupposes that there is a name and a definition. The latter isn't really the case (yet) for Web 2.0, but at least people can say some things that aren't Web 2.0. Use of the [font] tag, for example. 🙂
    Javascript or Flash navigation. The things which make usability experts gag!

    Anyway, my tuppeny worth.



  • @ithika said:


    This all presupposes that there is a name and a definition. The latter isn't really the case (yet) for Web 2.0, but at least people can say some things that aren't Web 2.0. Use of the [font] tag, for example. 🙂
    Javascript or Flash navigation. The things which make usability experts gag!


    So it's all just a buzzword to get rid of those annoying old habits? And I always thought it was an attempt to fool investors again.



  • @DrMindHacker said:

    I have been on the internet since the days of Gopher and Lynx.


    When someone prefaces their opinion with a statement on their vast history in the arena, I know I'm in for an opinion that can't stand on its own. You lived up to expectations with that nonsense.

    sincerely,
    Richard Nixon

    p.s. Web 2.0 is just marketing nonsense.



  • @Richard Nixon said:

    @DrMindHacker said:
    I have been on the internet since the days of Gopher and Lynx.


    When someone prefaces their opinion with a statement on their vast history in the arena, I know I'm in for an opinion that can't stand on its own. You lived up to expectations with that nonsense.

    sincerely,
    Richard Nixon

    p.s. Web 2.0 is just marketing nonsense.


    Indeed - and for a good Web 2.0 chuckle visit http://hinchcliffe.org

    You will find contained therein everything you wanted to know about
    - Giving enterprise software practices an 'angioplasty'
    - Balkanizing RSS and the risks to the information ecosystem

    And lets not forget the "People in the machine nuture the cloud"



  • @DrMindHacker said:

    Web 2.0 is very distinct


    The problem with this is that it's not true.

    It's a progress, not a distinct upgrade of anything.

    At no point can you say that we started doing thing "the Web2.0" way.

    No site can be clearly identified as "Web 2" or "not Web 2", unlike:

    - "ASP" and "ASP.Net"
    - "plain Ruby" and "Ruby on Rails"
    - Photoshop 8 and Photoshop 9

    Ergo,

    There is no such thing as "Web 2.0" per se. The name (and nam[i]ing[/i]) is entirely redundant because it is a forced collective of unrelated things that are quite happy on their own.



  • Did I just say "a progress"?

    Er.

    I did.

    I meant:

    A process. That progresses. Yeah. Progress process.



  • @DrMindHacker said:

         I think the main problem is confusion about what is Web 2.0.

    I have been on the internet since the days of Gopher and Lynx.  Down

    the road the web had changed alot as new languages and technologies

    emerged.  Web 2.0 is very distinct in that web sites are becoming

    more of a web service / web application, public/user editable, open

    APIs to content/services, and the mashing together of everything.

        I think some people are calling websites (their own or others)

    as 2.0 even though it isn't (confusion) and yea, definitely some

    sites that are 2.0 suck just like some people make crappy

    webpages - its a given.

         AJAX is a perfect example because it represents the

    integration (mashing) of existing technologies to create a

    new technique for web design.  None of the elements

    are new just a new way of mixing existing elements

    together - which is the essence of Web 2.0.





    This website should be able to answer any question you have about Web 2.0.



  • I really admire the way
    that you manually insert
    line-breaks as if you were
    using a type-writer.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.