Right now I am seeing appreciation for "Web 2.0" on the rise. As a user of many Web apps, I have been fed up with this since practically the week the phrase was invented.
I will use this list of examples of what Web 2.0 means:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Here's a list of what I hate about Web 2.0:
The following things are great and all, but they aren't part of the "Web 2.0":
If anyone sees "Web 2.0" doing something useful for the world, let me know!
Here is all the evil things about Web 2.0 in one pastel-colored package:
http://www.netvibes.com/
As for Web 2.0, I don't get it. Is it just server-based web applications? That what that article seems to make it out to be. It seems to me like all the "concepts" the article is listing are just the effects of using a server-based application model. Do we need an extra term for this? By the way, I've actually never heard this term before.
>>2
That thing is pretty cool, but I automatically hate anything that refers to itself as a "solution".
> AJAX
First off, that's a retarded acronym made up by some consulting company to make themselves sound important, and Slashdot fell for it hook-and-sinker. It's meaningless, misapplied and retarded.
Second, of course it won't make a static webpages any better. That's hardly the point, is it? The point is to make applications.
Look, I made one: http://wakaba.c3.cx/desktop-test/desktop.pl (login "test, password "test").
1995 called. They want their pundits back.
While I'm at it, someone remove that "3.0" from IIchan's front page.
>>4
I was under the impression "Web 2.0" meant applying the technology of your desktop app to regular Web pages. I might be wrong.
Of course the phrase is jibberish anyway.
>>4
slashdot fell for it because AJAX has that X in it, and has Microsoft taken out of it, unlike XMLHTTPRequest
>>6
I thought the main idea of "Web 2.0" was "harnessing collective intelligence", turning all Websites into services offering anything-goes collections of user-contributed content of questionable veracity, thereby relieving webmasters the trouble of having to come up with anything worth reading or being responsible for their own site's content.
The future belongs to lab rats, a future made possible by programmers so enamoured with their experimental paradigms that they're content to let their end users do all the contept-proving for them as they tirelessly work on the next big thing.
Woe be unto those who need to be told how they like to work.
Web 2.0 IS nothing but jibberish
All it signifies is the modernization of web in general.
"harnessing collective intelligence" is a nice fad, if applied correctly it could really make a site worth-while.
But both web 1.0 and 2.0 is/was prone to abuse. Google 1.0 had problems with web-page makers abusing meta-data. Google 2.0 has problems when peers abuse their click-ranking system. For an example, search "failure" =P
Web 3.0 might harness really powerful AI to improve web usibility, or whatever.
Either way, I won't be impressed until they do an overhaul of the net. The net was never designed to be used the way its used now. An anti-hacking/virus layer to the new net would be nice :)
"Harnessing collective intelligence" in context is bullshit anyway, because intelligence implies an ability to learn. You do not harness people's ability to learn by having them regurgitate data at a screen. At most, it's easing the harvest of wisdom, but said wisdom is questionable at best, as it always was, and always should be.
To me, web 2.0 is a set of technologies, and a way of applying them which eases the aggregation of often dubious data from a variety of sources. In otherwords, it's like Web 1.0, only "better". Some of it is more streamlined. Some of it is utter shite without someone at the helm who understands the technology, and doesn't assume that it's the perfect software solution. Wikis are a good example. They can be good, if you take the right precautions, and know how to run one with your eyes open to it's pitfalls. If you don't, it becomes yet another place for people to stroke their egos and push each other around.
The again, the goddamn thing is such a buzzword, that I'm not sure what the hell people think they mean when they talk about it. I don't even think they know anymore.
>>2
1998 called. They want their portals back. So you can drag and drop them now to shuffle the crap around, whoop de doo. It's still the same overcluttered portal design that every search engine and general interest website was trying to become way back when in a quixotic quest to shackle eyeballs.
"Web 2.0" is a relatively new meta-buzzword being used to try and wrap up all the web-related little buzzwords flying around right now into one single even-more-nebulous buzzword. It has two distinct aspects: technologies/concepts (some of which are actually good) and user base (most of which are drooling bandwagon-jumping people who think their blog Matters). Buzzwords are generally hard enough to decipher on their own, and Web 2.0 is a buzzword about other buzzwords, so the goal here is to try and explain this mess.
>>1
Make that four good implementations of AJAX: http://www.backpackit.com/
Great site, I use it for organizing all my school, work, and family crap. :) The SMS reminders by themselves are worth signing up for a free account...
http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
somewhat related
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Netvibes
somewhat related
Did you hear? Web 2.0 Has A Ballistic Trajectory! You've really gotta get on the bandwagon now!
>>18
You don't have any idea what your talking about. Web 2.0 is poised to expedite e-business platforms and mesh sticky supply-chains with integrated transparent interfaces that transform visionary markets. Through iterating one-to-one paradigms, it revolutionize cross-media mindshare.
Dreamweaver is a professional Web site development program for creating static pages and dynamic Web applications, and managing Web sites. Dreamweaver is considered the first Web authoring tool which has the capability of interfacing with multiple server models so it made Dreamweaver easier for the developer to deal with either the server-side code or client-side code. This software is not only for creating HTML pages but it is also suitable for coding a wide range of Web formats such as Cascading Style Sheet (CSS), Javascript, Xtreme Markup Language (XML) and ActionScript.
Bah! Seems Macromedia mis-understood the definition of XML. I always understood as E*x*tensible *M*arkup *L*anguage...?
XML: It's XXXtreme to the MAXX!
(while quantities last!)
Macromedia didn't make that mistake; whoever made that document did. It appears to have been written by a college student as an essay assignment or something.
Is this the kind of thing people mean when they say ajax?
http://www4.mississauga.ca/ClicknRide/TVPOptionsForm.aspx
Don't know about you... but last time I checked... AJAX was a brand of household cleaner.
What are these IT people smoking? :-) Something strong I'll bet.
>>26
It's not the "IT people", it's the bloggers. In "IT", we write web applications that get information from the server without reloading the entire page. In the "blogosphere", they slap a silly name on it and say it will revolutionize the Web.
And ... that's the first time I'd seen somebody expand XML like that. sobs Love is over.
Blogging is overrated. Yes, I have one myself, but it's primarily my way of delivering news to the masses. (e.g. in Gentoo/MIPS circles when I put out new stage tarballs or netboot images that need testing) However, I very rarely put up posts of a personal nature.
As far as Web 2.0 goes though... it's far too wishy washy for my liking. Supreme newbies congering up whatever rubbish sounds good. I've read a little on the topic, but even then, it's not clear which problems this solution attempts to solve, if any.
The saddest thing about the dumbass "AJAX" acronym is that it's just a lame marketing trick thought up by some consulting company, and people just ate it up.