Web 2.0 redux - Now with less buzz

Published
by
Karl
on February 12, 2006
in Marketing
. Tags: No Tags.

The noise regarding web 2.0 is reaching a crescendo, and as with all memes or buzzwords, lots of things become obscured. The noise, in fact is not just buzz, but debate, “what is web 2.0″ “does web 2.0 really exist” “who provides the tech support” “why is everyone’s apps starting to look like 37 signals stuff” and of course the pre-emptive “hey we’re talking about web 3.0 over here”.

Well, I’m no expert on web 2.0, and I certainly won’t be building a business around it, because seriously, you don’t think web 3.0, or web 4.0 is going to sound a lot faster, less-filling, now with PODJAX and AJAZZ.

For designers, web 2.0 is not just about the technology, because it has changed the paradigm for interaction on the web. Many people will point to RIA and AJAX makes a page based design metaphor less appropriate, requiring more of a “state” based design, and as Jeff Zeldman points out “makes wireframing a bitch” (Although Gene Smith of Atomiq.org has got a rather large but fab presentation called “beyond the page”). IMHO another rather important aspect the web 2.0 concept is the social software and co-creation component, making the “users” part of, and even creators of the value proposition.

Anyway, for the redux, I thought i would point to some useful and thoughtful articles:

They may not have invented the internet, but they did coin the term web 2.0, so read Tim O’Reilly on “what is web 2.0″

In the year and a half since, the term “Web 2.0″ has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there’s still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.

I also recommend Jeffery Zeldman’s article, web 3.0, which is essentially a critique of web 2.0 as a buzzword

“Were you at the Web 2.0 conference?” the arriving man asked, by way of thanking the other for saving his place. The kindly schmoe signified in the negative. This was all the encouragement our man needed to launch into an adjective-rich and fact-poor monologue that was loud enough for half the room to hear.

Kottke.org asks the question How do you design for web 2.0

Jason Fried, Jeff Veen, and I did a workshop yesterday on Design for Web 2.0. In preparing for the informal chat we had among ourselves and with the audience, we prepared a list of questions to consider. There’s about 15 of them, presented here unedited without context or answers

Emily Chang - a design strategist answers with an Agile Web Design Manifesto that offers some interesting, if general principles.

Core principles of Agile Web Design

  • Design the system not the surface
  • Design as evolutionary and user-driven
  • There is no page, only pathways
  • Rapid and iterative over final
  • Simplicity over complexity
  • Collaborative and open design

Emily also provides a very long list of next generation web applications here eHub is a constantly updated list of web applications, services, resources, blogs or sites with a focus on next generation web (web 2.0), social software, blogging, Ajax, Ruby on Rails, location mapping, open source, folksonomy, design and digital media sharing

And just for fun:

Building your very own web 2.0 layout

The Trendiest web2.0 page on the net

I’m putting this one under just for fun, because as opposed to Jeffery Zeldman’s ironic statement that he was jumping on the web 3.0 bandwagon, this zdnet article is really trying to pre-empt it.What to expect from web 3.0

Today I’m going to start by mapping out a brief topology of Web 3.0. It’s divided into three (and a half) distinct layers: API Services, Aggregation services
Application Services, Serviced Clients

Ok, I get it, he really is joking, not.

1 Response to “Web 2.0 redux - Now with less buzz”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  1. 1 Quinlan
    July 20, 2006 at 11:06 am

    I think it is great that the idea of Agile Web Design is being picked up and more strength to Emily for kick-starting it, however, I can’t help but feel it is a forced premise. Agile may be the vogue word of the day, but for designers an Organic or Parametric approach would make more sense. Agile does not ape its industrial antecedents as espoused by Deming and Shewart or the Toyota team, so why should design seek to ape agile as espoused by Beck, Schwaber, Cockburn and the other signatories of the agile manifesto? Jesse James Garrett might make a better starting point as might Tim Brown of IDEO.

Leave a Reply