Five Reasons Why Web 2.0 Matters

Dion...interesting. I tend to agree with you. I've been thinking about something similar and started a new series about it on my blog yesterday. When are we getting together?

Dion and Ken ... The reasons we need it ... spot on. But I've been pondering the continuing dislike of the term "Web 2.0". No one likes it. I think it's overly precise. I mentioned this yesterday in another comment here. But today I put my blog where my comments were and discussed how Web 2.0 makes us focus on the browser and not the interaction.

yes i think the web 2.0 is a lot more browser dependent.

Great post, Dion. For what it is worth, the thing that really resonates with me is that "Web 2.0" is based on best practices. Having learned how to do things better (finally learned how to do them right?), and implementing best practices, means a lot. I really think this is an extension of your first point "the Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0". This "focus" makes technologies easier to use and more closely aligned with what users actually WANT/NEED as opposed to what developers want to build. Technologies developed in this way accelerate adoption of internet leveraging technologies within the mainstream markets - so everybody wins.

Customer focus, which is manifested in Web 2.0’s “continuous feedback”, is an age old business concept – it’s great to see the web growing up.

Well, since you brought up the Web 2.0 name issue, I have to say the name is a huge oxymoron to me. How can a concept that has "continuous beta" as an attribute have a version??? At best it should be Beta Web :)

How about "Web Patterns"... since you're fond of "Design Patterns".

Hi Dion - wanted to trackback to your article but your server is refusing connections. So here it is by way of comment: Honorable Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board, has been quoted saying that the way we define requirements in the federal government dates back from mainframe times. I agree. All too often, public servants will dutifully attempt to come up with a frozen list of requirements, unwittingly ignoring emerging trends & technologies (...)

Please look up what Feng Shui means. I applies to the design and layout of physical structures or spaces, not ideas.

Michael:

Yes, I agree, the continuous feedback concept is big and going to get bigger.

Pete:

"Web Patterns" is good but only close. But we do need a better name at Web 2.0, which does represent design patterns and business models of the next generation of the Web.

Bret:

Feng Shui means "harmony in design" and I believe that represents Web 2.0 all the way.

Keep the comments coming folks, that's what it's all about....

Best,

Dion

This is precisely why "Web 2.0" does not matter -- it's a bunch of gee-whiz jargon jammed together. Feng Shui, long tail, "Technology Moves to People" -- those are meaningless, pretentious, pointless, fuzzy statements.

There are some good things happening which are being described as "Web 2.0", sure. But in the vast majority of cases they're just incremental changes, or slightly new ways to amalgamate pre-existing technologies. You can't even define it in technical terms -- just with hype and trendy buzzwords. When your #1 reason is something nebulous about "people power" and your #3 is "Feng Shui", that proves beyond doubt that you've got nothing of actual substance.

Ben:

Thanks for your comments but please read the rest of the articles on this blog. I believe that I clearly articulate the ingredients of Web 2.0 with enough substance to satisfy most.

In fact, I wrote this particular piece to answer the argument that Web 2.0 coverage is often too inaccessible and obscure for most people (and I made it clear who the audience was in the article).

I do however find it fairly amusing that when I write a more approachable explanation of Web 2.0, that I then get a large number of folks criticizing it for lack of detail.

And don't forget to read the rest of the articles here. You'll find out Web 2.0 has so much to offer, both new and old.

Best,

Dion

It's inconceivable to you that someone might simultaneously understand what you mean and disagree, isn't it?

The technology that you claim as "Web 2.0" is cool, but it's not all that. It's XML, Javascript, CSS and a few other things applied in some neat new ways. I work with some of it, it's nice, but to me it's self-evidently evolution rather than revolution.

The jargon and hype and the miasma of new buzzwords and claims that Web 2.0 will change the world because of its human-centered ballistic feng shui trajectory to the moon is just contemptible.

Ok, I'll bite. In which articles do you "clearly articulate the ingredients of Web 2.0"? I've spent a few minutes browsing the archives, but I don't see much in the way of concrete listings. For instance, I'm not sure how you can write an article rebutting Joel (et al.) without listing anything concrete. After all, that's all it would take to rebut them - they claim that there's no there there. A statement such as "folks like Tim O'Reilly have painstakingly defined it" can't just be left floating there - it screams to be a link! Where has he done such a thing?

Please, I really want to be convinced that there's something to the hype. Like Ben, I see an evolution that has blossomed and spread (how's that metaphor?).

(oops... commented too soon. I found the O'Reilly post. But is there a reason you don't link to your own articles?)

Here's a good one:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://web2.wsj2.com/five_reasons_why_web _20_matters.htm

Tell us more about the standards-based best-practice architecture there, Dion, please! Is this feng shui or is my qi in a karma? It's ballistically qualitative.

WoW, Web 2.O! Voll www.Fettisch.de!

Dion, to me, Web 2.0 is both design/tech patterns and business models. I don't differentiate much between patters vs. models so changing "business models" to "business patterns" allows one to just combing all of Web 2.0 into "patterns". So, Web Patterns works better for me than any other name I've seen.

Personally I think Tim O et al did the world a bit of injustice with such a quick jump to a name like Web 2.0; I'm certain we're stuck with it. Oh well. And don't even get me started on "mashups". Like the term "continuous beta", "mashups" are very unappealing and somewhat negative names.

These are indicators that a bit too much of Web 2.0 is about hacking instead of good design. People still depend way, WAY too much on technical people (engineers); they are horrible designers (as in designing for human consumption).

More people need to read Alan Cooper's "The Inmates are Running the Asylum".

Carry on :) I like your blog because it actually tries to make sense of Web 2.0 rathern than just evangelizing it.

You're close, Dion, but you're not quite seeing it. I'm reminded of a story...

The devil and a friend were walking along a sidewalk. A man walking ahead of them stopped and picked up something he'd spotted on the ground. The devil started quietly laughing and his friend asked him what he found funny. “That man has just found a piece of the truth and has mistaken it for the whole truth,” The devil chuckled. “Having found what he believes to be the whole truth, he’ll now stop searching for truth alltogether.”

Feel free to stop by Plexav.Com and say hello.

~Ken

One nice benefit of AJAX--thin computing. After 22 years of spinning drives and fans... total silence would be nice.

Nice Blog of yours. Keep up the good work.

--<a href=http://filipinasgifts.com/shop/sitemap.html>Shop online </a>and <a href=http://www.mlagifts.com/Scripts/philippinegifts-sitemap.asp>Send Philippine Gifts</a> to any part of the country.

Thanks for very interesting article.