Web 2.0

DavidTO · August 27, 2006

Having no idea what Web 2.0 is, I did a search, and found this article, which left me just as clueless as before.

Anyone have a simple explanation of what Web 2.0 is?

StevenV · August 27, 2006

one explanation: if "web 1.0" was built with html and gci, where every new request for info required a whole page reload (dhtml excepted), "web 2.0" is built with ajax (async-javascript and xml) where things are more interactive. think gmail, 30boxes, etc.

StevenV · August 27, 2006

yeesh. reading through the o'reilly I can see why you're still confused. they pile a whole lot more in there than just ajax. i guess i can buy most of it. they claim to have created the name 'web 2.0' or at least trademarked it, so i guess it's whatever they say it is.

Here's Wikipedia's entry. I'd also buy their overview, of "services that let people collaborate and share information online in perceived new ways." That's broader, more inclusive than the inital technical-only description I gave.

DavidTO · August 27, 2006

Thanks, Steven.

I should have checked the wiki from the start, eh? I know better.

But all that helps me get a grasp on it.

Richard · August 27, 2006

DavidTO wrote:

Anyone have a simple explanation of what Web 2.0 is?

Whatever it is, I'm going to wait for version 2.1.

DJ-S1 · August 27, 2006

I guess I was confusing Web2.0 with Internet2.

wxwax · August 27, 2006

Funny, I looked that up last week. I came away thinking of it as a more interactive Web.

ChrisJ · August 27, 2006

Anyone want a tutorial? [computerworld.com]

Richard · August 27, 2006

wxwax wrote:

Funny, I looked that up last week. I came away thinking of it as a more interactive Web.

Yes, that seems to be the most common meaning.

It is important to understand, though, that Web 2.0 is not a specification or standard of any kind. It is really a marketing term that has about as much precision as "new, improved." Mostly the term seems designed to convince venture capitalists that if they don't invest now, they will be missing out on the second chance of a lifetime.

That's not to say that AJAX and colloborative web apps are just hype. They're real, all right, though they seem more of an evolution than a revolution to me.

peestandingup · August 27, 2006

rsinmadrid wrote:

Yes, that seems to be the most common meaning.

It is important to understand, though, that Web 2.0 is not a specification or standard of any kind. It is really a marketing term that has about as much precision as "new, improved." Mostly the term seems designed to convince venture capitalists that if they don't invest now, they will be missing out on the second chance of a lifetime.

That's not to say that AJAX and colloborative web apps are just hype. They're real, all right, though they seem more of an evolution than a revolution to me.

Right! The term "Web 2.0" can be used to describe lots of things. From the way websites look & feel to the features a site has, but most of the time its all those things combined. But, it usually describes sites that use the newer web technologies (ajax/javascript) opposed to sites that use older stuff (html/css).

Its just something you know when you see. Examples of sites that can be described as "Web 2.0" are: Flickr, Zenfolio, Google Maps, YouTube, Tribe.net, etc) Similar sites like those, but can be described as "Web 1.0" are: Pbase, Smugmug (sorry, but they arent quite there yet), Mapquest, PutFile, Myspace, etc.

wxwax · August 27, 2006

What makes zenfolio more interactive than smugmug?

dgrin - web 2.0 since 2003.

Andy · August 27, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

sites like those, but can be described as "Web 1.0" are: Smugmug (sorry, but they arent quite there yet)

:bigbs

Let's see the sustained record of innovation

All recognized as "Web 2.0"

Ajaxing our Tools - Aug 2006
SmugMaps on Homepage - May 2006
Photorank - Mar 2006
SmugLoupe and Critique - Feb 2006
Lightbox - Jan 2006
Customer-created themes - Oct 2005
Complete Customization - Sep 2005
SmugMaps - Aug 2005
Google Earth Feeds - Aug 2005
RSS, Atom Feeds - Apr 2005
Communities - Mar 2005
Keywords - Jan 2005
Full Screen Slideshows - Mar 2005
Photo Timeline - Jan 2005
Make it easy to Leave SmugMug - Oct 2004
SmugMug API - true participatory Smug - Sep 2004
Customer-cropping in the shopping cart - Aug 2004
Camera phone and email uploads - Apr 2004
Custom categories - since May 2003
Sharegroups - since May 2003
User comments - since Nov 2002

peestandingup · August 27, 2006

Andy wrote:

:bigbs

To call SmugMug "Web 1.0" is just wrong in so many ways.

Ajaxing our Tools - Aug 2006
SmugMaps on Homepage - May 2006
Photorank - Mar 2006
SmugLoupe and Critique - Feb 2006
Lightbox - Jan 2006
Customer-created themes - Oct 2005
Complete Customization - Sep 2005
SmugMaps - Aug 2005
Google Earth Feeds - Aug 2005
RSS, Atom Feeds - Apr 2005
Communities - Mar 2005
Keywords - Jan 2005
Full Screen Slideshows - Mar 2005
Photo Timeline - Jan 2005
Make it easy to Leave SmugMug - Oct 2004
SmugMug API - true participatory Smug - Sep 2004
Customer-cropping in the shopping cart - Aug 2004
Camera phone and email uploads - Apr 2004
Custom categories - since May 2003
Sharegroups - since May 2003
User comments - since Nov 2002

Most of those are all features more or less & arent really part of the overall look/feel of Smugmug's photo browsing to regular viewers. While those are indeed VERY "Web 2.0" like features, they have been laid overtop of a "Web 1.0" interface. I dont think you can truly say Smugmug is a full "Web 2.0" inside & out, but I also dont really think they are "Web 1.0" either, so maybe I misspoke earlier. But, being called "Web 1.0" isnt an insult nor did I mean it to be.

But, there is no such thing as "Web 1.5", but if there were, I think SM would fall in that category until the UI gets a makeover. Is that fair to say??

StevenV · October 17, 2006

Zeldman's got some thoughts (and a game) on the subject: http://www.zeldman.com/2006/10/17/web-20-thinking-game/

ivar · October 21, 2006

http://www.go2web20.net/

scroll down

jfriend · October 21, 2006

A few examples at Zenfolio

wxwax wrote:

What makes zenfolio more interactive than smugmug?

Smugmug has many web 2.0 things like:

Arrange mode for ordering a gallery
Adding a caption
Adding a comment
All the things that Andy mentioned

One of the basic ideas of web 2.0 is that you can carry out an operation by dynamically changing the page you're on (using JavaScript and XML requests) without reloading the page you're on or making you go somewhere else.

But, here are a few examples of Web 2.0 kinds of things in the viewing experience at Zenfolio:

Dynamically adjusts the number of thumbnails to fit the window size without reloading the page (the content just fits itself to the window size)
Clicking on a new thumb only loads a new large image, it doesn't reload the whole page or change the scroll position (very useful when someone has too big a banner or you're reading on a small screen)
Images are pre-cached so going next, next through a gallery is much faster and also doesn't change your scroll position
The main image in a "smugmug style" view at Zenfolio is automatically sized to be a good size for your window. Make your window larger and the main image gets larger, no views to change, no configurations to change
Full keyboard support for navigating (particularly right/left arrow)
Photo info dynamically inserts itself into the page rather than in a separate window or a separate view

StevenV · February 7, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE

DavidTO · February 7, 2007

StevenV wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE

That's cool!!!

Ric Grupe · February 7, 2007

DavidTO wrote:

That's cool!!!

Thanks, Steven!

Ric Grupe · February 7, 2007

Andy wrote:

:bigbs

Let's see the sustained record of innovation All recognized as "Web 2.0"

I can bark, sniff butts, and pee all over things outside; but, that does not make me a dog.

SmugMug is getting there though.:D

Edit: If I had noticed the date on the original posting.....OH WELL!

DoctorIt · February 7, 2007

Ric Grupe wrote:

Edit: If I had noticed the date on the original posting.....OH WELL!

beat me to it

Web 2.0

Comments