Generally there is no strong definition of Web 2.0. One can say that it is a package of modern styles, of facilities, simplicity and of powerful engine. There is a great article written by Ian Delaney on this subject; it turned out that the question “What’s Web 2.0?” is frequently asked.
Generally there is no strong definition of Web 2.0. One can say that it is a package of modern styles, of facilities, simplicity and of powerful engine. There is a great article written by Ian Delaney on this subject; it turned out that the question “What’s Web 2.0?” is frequently asked.
Most of characteristics and definitions for this list I took from the articles of Tim O’Reilly, Paul Graham and from Jason Fried’s poll on this subject.
1. Wisdom of the Crowd
Here we think of sites of such sort where they use joint estimate in order to define the importance of news. People talk about power of “net effect” meaning this definition. Google search works taking into account the number and quality of incoming links for defining the importance of every specific page. Though it doesn’t relate to Google Maps or any other project as application in the form of service like Basecamp, Writely, 30boxes, etc; although they all have a certain attitude to Web 2.0. Also this definition doesn’t match social networks like MySpace, although the net effect is quite important for them.
2. Shared Web Applications
One of the most intelligent definitions from Jason Fried’s list. And it is quite opposite to the first one as it matches site like Basecamp and 30Boxes. Nevertheless there are several services which miss the social element, for instance: Pandora, Google Maps, Orchestrate, goowy. The very definition of web application is quite uncomfortable. I understand why one can easily call Google search and digg web applications, although if taking it as a basis of Web 2.0 defenition, then MySpace should also be called an application. On the whole, any web site will turn to be an application on practice.
3. Web as a Platform
It is quite difficult to determine limits of this definition. On general sense every web page uses web as a platform. Tim O’Reilly, who actually gave this definition, considers them to be services which can not exist without web, thinking about such sites as eBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype and Dodgeball. I understand it like any online community falls into this category. Are forums and Usenet really Web 2.0? Most people will answer they are not. It is a vague notion.
4. Users Participation
This definition shows the difference between usual newspapers and new services like YouTube, flickr and OhMyNews, where the users are not just casual observers but also creators. There is even such an expression “Read/Write Web” among the followers of this definition (meaning web access for reading and writing). On the one hand, it is also too unclear, as again forums are in, although on the other hand sites of web applications are out.
5. Expended Users’ Interface
Web 2.0 sites use CSS, AJAX and other technologies in order to expend usability and to create such pages which could be able showing far much information on the same space. Thus it appears that MySpace main page is the least expended among those we can even think about. Till Google haven’t presented possibility of predicting keywords when inputting data this year, it didn’t use anything like this. Also shopping cart availability at AJAX internet shop doesn’t stand for Web 2.0. For example, Dell.com has a “live” shopping cart already too long, but does it really mean Web 2.0?
6. Marketing Buzz Word
All skeptics say so. Google search, eBay and craiglist, considered to be web applications because of meeting some features mentioned above, are much popular nowadays; however this popularity is to disappear. Everyone who calls all new sites to be web 2.0 likes this definition. I agree that web 2.0 already became a marketing word, nothing is so simple though.
7. Data is the New Intel Inside
I like this phrase even despite of its roughness. It is one more definition made by O’Reilly. Data operating is the core of functionality of Web 2.0 campaigns. The same but with other words – SQL is the new HTML. The whole amount of Web 2.0 sites, starting with Google and 30Boxes start-ups, usually works under data bases and simply gives search results in some specific form. However there are two problems here:
- data operating is not the most attractive idea which people would like to face;
- many of Web 1.0 campaigns also found nice use of data bases, like Altavista or Lastminute.com.
8. Eternal Beta
They constantly relaunch, rewrite and revise Web 2.0 applications. For example, main numbers of Google applications are still in beta. They say that flickr is elaborated every 30 minutes. MySpace and other social networks are adding new functions every few weeks. I believe thi is the most distinct characteristic of Web 2.0 services. But this and long ago generated, is the part of the process ob usual applications development Windows and MacOs release patches every month; anti-virus programs are updated daily, but this is not Web 2.0. The same but with other words – easy patterns of programming. I think that this phrase means a lot to people rather than just a product stage. Most users want applications work properly.
9. Using Web on its Purpose
This definition is taken from Paul Graham’s essay on our subject. He refers to improvement of usability, achieved by the good design and AJAX; but also says about providing users with possibility of creating their own ways of organizing information like del.icio.us and flickr. There are several problems here although. Firstly it is also unclear: I am sure that there is a great amount of web sites with good usability doing exactly what it was designed for. For example, old, but not working right now, site with schedule of English trains was ideal in this very sense, it gave you the time of your train quickly and simple. But no one would call it Web 2.0. Secondly, it is rather forced definition, which says that we are coming to the conclusion. The great number of sites called Web 2.0, were called so definitely wrong.
10. Nothing
One of the most popular answer of Jason Fried’s poll. It was rather difficult for me to write about it, taking into consideration that I have given examples and described problems of all mentioned above definitions. However, I do not agree with this definition. Here are two answers which I consider to be right: