What is Web 2.0?
What is web 2.0?
In this post I would like to explore what is meant by the term Web 2.0. This term has become quiet hyped in the media of late and relates to the design of social networking sites such as Facebook.com and Flickr.com. I thought it timely then to provide my view on what I think Web 2.0 is in a down-to-earth manner.The following video presentation gives an excellent analysis of Web 2.0 for those us who prefer video. Please feel free to read my post below for a more text based explanation.
In presenting the affordances of digital media and the internet it should be noted that there was also a relationship between the online systems architecture that housed traditional websites which affected what was technically possible in the design of static websites. These early systems were based on relatively primitive computers and networks which were not very digital media friendly for the majority of personal computer users. These systems were impeded by technical constraints such as flaky operating systems, incompatible web browsers and hardware that had limited ability to render digital media as it was meant to be performed. These limitations greatly affected the philosophy of design that went into building a static website. It should also be noted that static websites and infrastructure which preceded the dot com crash of 2001 are commonly referred to as Web 1.0 websites.
Thus we see how the web 1.0 paradigm severely limited interaction and design philosophy which in turn limited the type of websites and digital media assets that could be published via the World Wide Web. Furthermore web 1.0 websites did not allow for complex interactions between the website visitor and website content. Often the website visitor was restricted to reading text and playing very small sound files and videos.
In a web 1.0 paradigm, interaction designers were limited to the use hypertext mark-up language, customized stye sheets, compressed digital images and movie files and computer code such as java-script to achieve fancy visual or user interactivity effects. This content could not be shared easily between different web site visitors. Commonly the website visitor was often unable to leave comments about the digital media nor were they allowed to share it with other internet users. To update a web 1.0 website the whole website often had to be closed down and re-written so that digital media assets could be uploaded.
The updating process was costly for the owner of the website and often meant delays in the website visitor gaining access to the website whilst the site was being maintained. A further disadvantage of web 1.0 websites was that each website owner had to have a web hosting account with an internet service provider and a domain name that would help the website visitor find their website. In some countries a commercial website could not be hosted publicly without being owned by a registered business.
However, the web 1.0 design philosophy was not without its benefits. For the gatekeeper of the website, known as the webmaster, a number of technical advantages could be made available for website visitors. Many web 1.0 interaction designers argue that web 1.0 is more secure and more stable. Web 1.0 designers often remark that even with the advent of cheaper broadband for internet users not everyone has access to high speed broadband. This issue is important as a web 1.0 framework offers websites that are lighter and take up less bandwidth. Websites that are lighter are more accessible to people who have slower broadband connections such as dial-up. Thus web 2.0 can sometimes preclude equitable access to information and services due to web 2.0 tending to be heavier in digital media applications and content. This restriction should be seen as deign consideration that needs to be taken into account when designing web 2.0 websites.
What is web 2.0?
Shortly after the dot com crash a number of new media organisations started seeking answers as to what went wrong with their web 1.0 based websites and electronic commerce business models. The aim of this reflection was to come up with profitable websites that would be sustainable into the future. It was also the dot com crash which drove the evolution of a new philosophy of interaction and design. For example, News Corporation Ltd purchased Myspace.com as a vehicle to increase its online audience size and to increase revenue through advertising. Digital content and commercials are now part of the Myspace.com online user experience. This new design philosophy has become known as web 2.0 and is starting to be used as a web development strategy by many interaction designers.
Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) is often seen as being about designing websites and web applications that are focused on user-centred design, to make websites more acceptable to their users. However, web 2.0 is not just about user-centred design, it is also about achieving a profitable website or web-application that meets a client’s business goals. To achieve this, web 2.0 websites and applications must incorporate a profitable business model which then becomes part of the web platform.
What are the affordances of web 2.0?
Web 2.0 affordances are difficult to define as they are more about the philosophy of interaction and design and business models than the graphical aesthetics or technical aesthetics of a website. O’Reilly’s (2005) suggested web 2.0 affordances include:
• Putting the website user first by not allowing the technology to rule what the website user can do;
• Trusting the user and allowing users to have access to certain levels of features;
• Include small pieces of loosely joined information and applications which enable the users to post and host their own small websites. This allows for the contribution of User Generated Content (UCC);
• Long-tail economics which evokes a philosophy of working towards the edge of the long-tail to achieve higher innovation and creativity;
• Include data as the Intel inside which allows easy access to data;
• The perpetual beta which allows for continual improvement to the perpetual beta scenario; this means that software should not be closed as a final version as doing so indicates that you think you can’t make it better;
• Hack-ability which allows the user to change the software to meet their needs.
• Allowing the users to add software content and report faults and bugs quickly which helps improve quality control; and
• The Right to Remix; Some rights reserved allows website visitors the flexibility to increase content on your site while giving credit to the website user (O’Reilly 2005).
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
Tags: blogs, creative capital theoary, electronic learning systems, electronic portfolios, human capital, Software design, Web 1.0, web 2.0, weblogs, wikis
Posted in Software design, Web 1.0, blogs, creative capital theoary, electronic learning systems, electronic portfolios, human capital, web 2.0, weblogs, wikis
No Comments