Web 2.0: Is it just hype?
For the past year or so, there's been lots of chattering about
this Web 2.0. The term came to life when Dale Dougherty of
O'Reilly Media brainstormed with MediaLive's Craig Cline.
Is it just another term that Web experts and personalities are
spreading to drum up followers and business? If nothing else,
many (resources at the end of the article plus we'll skip
quoting the ones that have been quoted a hundred times already)
agree the Web is still maturing and it's changing from "I go
get" to "come to me," says Thomas Vander Wal[1].
The term is hype. That is all it is. Hype. Cry and scream, if
you want, but the Web can't have a label like this. It's not a
project with a start and finish timeline. It evolves. When the
first phone came to be, it didn't get names like Phone 1.0 or
Phone BC (before cell). The phone industry involved and now the
lines are blurring between phones and Internet connections, even
cable television.
But, the thoughts and ideas behind it are important.
Poster children for 2.0
The Web is no longer static and one-way -- visitors read content
and play no role. Instead, we're seeing users who participate
and connect to each other using services as opposed to Web
sites. Applications are no longer limited to desktops or even
the Web site itself as more Web-based applications come out.
Sites are becoming more interactive so users aren't simply
sitting and watching the Web go by. They can do something with
the content they see, even if it's not their own and it happens
instantly.
Zimbra (http://www.zimbra.com/), Netvibes
(http://www.netvibes.com/), Writely (http://www.writely.com/),
CalendarHub (http://www.calendarhub.com/), ObjectGraph
Dictionary (http://www.objectgraph.com/dictionary/), TuDu
(http://app.ess.ch/tudu/welcome.action), and a Periodic Table of
the Elements (http://code.jalenack.com/periodic/) are examples
of two-way communication that occur in real-time. Go to these
sites and play with them. It should be easy to see why these
(and few other obvious that don't need another mention) are the
epitome of where the Web is going.
Repeating themes
In most Web 2.0 articles, the following are recurring themes:
*Semantic markup.
*XML.
*Portable content - content crosses paths, appears in multiple
places, and connects.
*Users get real-time control.
*Adding metadata, tags, keywords to anything and everything.
Content can go anywhere thanks to RSS feeds and API (application
program interface). Feeds allow people to subscribe to a Web
site's content or port them into their own Web sites or mobile
devices. Google, Amazon, and eBay have APIs to let developers
build applications that use these Web site's tools. An example
of API is adding a Google map to your Web site that shows how to
get to your location.
All of these are indicators of the big steps forward we're
seeing on the Web. They should not be grouped and labeled.
I still don't get it. What is 2.0?
Forget Web 2.0, but not what it represents.
It represents the change in how people and information interact
on the Web. It represents designers and developers are thinking
about how people use information and that users add value. It
represents different approaches for making this happen.
To be honest, writing this article has been difficult. Read the
many definitions of Web 2.0 on the Web and no two say the same
thing. It's yet another buzzword. As Rick Segal writes in his
post on the topic, "Don't look for the buzz words to get you
into the game or get you a check."
The term isn't important. It's about seeing a change in the Web
as users enjoy more real-time control and participation while
connecting to each other through many means. So to heck with the
"label" and just know the Web is growing up and a lot of things
are happening in terms of the advances made to make it a more
interactive experience that puts the user in the driver's seat.
"The term Web 2.0 particularly bugs me. It's not a real concept.
It has no meaning. It's a big, vague, nebulous cloud of pure
architectural nothingness," writes Joel Spolsky of Joel on
Software [4].
Vander Wal says, "There is more hype in Web 2.0 than great steps
forward."
Amen.
[1] http://www.vanderwal.net/essays/pic/050715/ [2]
http://ricksegal.typepad.com/pmv/2005/10/web_20_a_check.html
[3]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/10/21.html