I think I have been trying to get my head around exactly what Web 2.0 means until I found this fantastic article by Tim O'Reilly. So I have tried to synthesize all of the info in this article and basically (hopefully not too basic) web 2.0 is about the shift towards interactivity. The web should no longer be about the static but about the dynamic and interactive.
Browsers (viewers/readers? I'm not sure what the right term should be), in a web 2.0 world are more 'in control' of their web experience. Sharing, commenting, discussing and interacting are important parts of the web 2.0 experience. Beyond that, the web should become more intuitive and responsive, like Amazon/Google suggestions.
Communication should flow in both directions and the web should increasingly facilitate user to user communication not just user to computer. I think that web 2.0 is about the internet differentiating itself from other communication media and really utilising the characteristics that make it the web:
Books are static.
Television is passive.
Newspapers are not updateable.
None of them are interactive.
On the other hand, the web should:
Be interactive and dynamic, encouraging user participation.
Get better the more that people use it (as O'Reilly puts it 'perpetual beta').
Tell the long tail (cater for all, not just the head (think decentralisation))
O'Reilly talks about web 2.0 also and perhaps more importantly being about an attitude shift about what the internet is.
Awating the buzz
15 years ago
Hi Pat, as you know I'm doing this same assignment and as I was finishing the written part came across the comment that web 2.0 is more or less a moment of greater access [via open architecture, less barriers, better bandwidth and comp. power.] which is the history and the future of the web. Is convergence of technology the new web frontier - man and machine?
ReplyDeletei think that bit about books being static etc. is incredibly insightful - seriously, it really lays it out and explains the benefits of web 2.0 sites in the most basic of terms.
ReplyDeleteand ABSOLUTELY communication should flow in both directions - well said! so the interactivity of web 2.0 (when well executed) is the very definition of communication...
These are my thoughts on ACF's webpage:
ReplyDeleteThere could be less tags on the navigation bar - say the recommended max of 6. The navigation tags are simple and logical.
The layout is pretty good and its well laid out structure would help lead user around page - but it needs more white space to make it look cleaner and extra padding between elements would help.
The site doesn’t encourage a lot of user interaction or authoring – would benefit from introducing a blog/forum of some sort to get the user more involved. Needs to be more social.
The site has some of the basic web 2.0 characteristics/technologies like
Social bookmarking; Subscribe; Search; and Links.
Overall, a well laid out webpage but would benefit from more user interaction options to meet up to Web 2.0 interface standards.