I know now. Well, I know enough to answer someone if they said to me 'Do you know what all this stuff about Web 2.0 is about?'. Okay, I could have answered it before but that would have been an absolute - I don't know! It's fuzzy around the edges but now I have an idea.
My take on Web 2.0 is that it is, to put it simply, terminology encompassing the evolution of the Internet. Web 1.0 (if such a term exists) covers the initial burst of popularity and usability, and Web 2.0 is the next wave of technology, flexibility and accessibility.
The web has become dynamic. If you look at the frame based static pages developed in the mid to late 1990's compared to the dynamic sites being developed today, the differences are major. Previously sites wither worked in frames or had to load the entire page every time you would click on a new link. Today sites can provide new feeds, interactivity with the site and preempt search suggestions with recommendations or links.
The internet has always been about people connecting to access information quickly. What this evolution has made possible is people interacting to access information - whether this be through chat rooms, forums, instant messenger, posting on comment boards or creating wiki entries - this is a key element of what makes up Web 2.0.
What is making it possible for people to interact rather than simply connect is the technology. A new wave of web based applications is the key element to the dynamic way in which we now deal with the web. It's not just the glossy graphics and funky flash animations, it is what is making those things possible.
Web 2.0 is not a one way path of information sharing - it encourages, by the very nature of the beast, interactivity. Signs of the time (and evolution) are:
- MySpace / Facebook (social networking communities)
- Wikis (user created content)
- Google maps
- Windows Live!
- RSS
My first venture into the Blinklist community, was reviewing the page for the class task - Internet Communications Blinklist.
Looking at how this site operates and converting it in my head to a HTML site I can see that the dynamic technology behind this does not necessarily translate to replicating this as a static HTML page. With straight HTML, it wouldn't be possible to offer the same interactivity (eg with the voting options).
If this were a HTML page some of the differences would be:
- the user would need to create a bookmark instead of using 'add to watchlist'
- no option to flag as spammer would be available
- a guest book would be in place instead of 'leave a message'
- links and 'active contacts' would need to be manually created by the owner rather than dynamically created by the user
- if voting/rating were to be included it would need to be manually created by the owner or included in the guest book comments.
In my opinion and experience, dynamic works better to offer interactivity to users. Once the structure is in place it makes pages easier and faster to update as well as encouraging communication and participation from page/site visitors.
I hestiate to say that one is better than the other - I see it more of an evolution of process. HTML pages were the 'bees knees' and dynamic pages are rising to the top of the charts for flexibility, participation and ease of use. HTML is still usable technology but more of a building block in the process than the whole kit and kaboodle.
Creating a page like this as something dynamic and interactive fully encompasses what I believe Web 2.0 is all about. It's the evolution of the Internet - it shows how it has changed over the past 10 or so years and gives a glimpse into the future where this technology will become old hat and we'll move into the next phase as the internet and the way we use it continues to evolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment