Thursday, December 10, 2009

What's the big deal about Web 2.0?




Let's take a look at what Web 2.0 is and what it is not. We'll start with the world's shortest history lesson.

Web 1.0


I wrote my first web page in 1996. When the WorldWide Web was implemented, the initial key features were these:

  1. Present content. Offer users information that they want at the click of a button.


  2. Relate content. Connect things. Link words to other related locations. Create relationships between documents and ideas.

    This is what the HT in HTML means. "Hypertext" is text that connects to other text, in this case through links.


  3. Right here, right now. Make information (including personal emails!) available at any computer you sit down at.

    Now your data is no longer tied to your home location. It's out there in "the cloud" and you can get at it any time you need it, no matter where you are.

    Hello, new security models and implications! Gotta remember those passwords now.


  4. Images (and media). Provide pictures, video, and sound. Compress to the smallest size possible or you'll lose your viewers to the annoyingly long transfer times. Adapt industries to new needs for storage space both centrally, and on the user's terminal.


  5. Develop new revenue models. Offering content online shifts the way people look for emerging facts. Newspapers are challenged to keep up with this trend and rapidly shift to web presentation. Advertising techniques adapt, especially with the creation of the now-ubiquitous "banner ad."


But all of this was still directed at how to present static content to an enduser, and direct an enduser to the content a provider wanted them to request.

Fast forward 13 years later and it's a revolutionary world all over again.

Web 2.0


The Web was first a repository for permanent content. It's now a place to interact. Today, everyone makes his or her own content. It's dynamic. It doesn't expect the user to come looking for content, but it adapts to the addition of new content by the user.


Keys to this new world are:

  1. Access. You get to manage who has access to your data.


  2. Individuality. The content you want is delivered to you in a way that suits you. RSS feeds, user preferences, and "skins" make your experience of reading someone else's content as unique as you are.


  3. Easy media. You get to create and share pictures, sounds, and movies.

    The Web initially allowed you to find someone else's movies. Now, anyone with a reasonably recent cell phone can be a movie producer, a songwriter/musician, or a photographer. There are all sorts of places and ways to store, access, share, and control your media files. Basic tools for creating and editing are generally free.


  4. Collaborative environments. Once upon a time, great columnists received fan mail (or hate mail), and occasionally responded. Now, all blog platforms incorporate tools for interacting with readers in nearly real-time.

    • Wikipedia was built by (mostly) altruists who started with zero content and the hopes that people would pour their knowledge into an open forum. (It worked.)


    • Social networking sites have become the dominant force on the Internet, making interaction king.


    • YouTube encourages video responses to postings, resulting in a sort of ongoing video conversation.


    • Google Docs and the new Google Wave extend this trend exponentially, allowing teams of users to interactively contribute to the development of a project.


  5. Ubiquitous metrics. It used to be that you had to have a marketing degree to know who visited your site and why. Now various applications open this to anyone and everyone. You can view your own site statistics in real time and then tailor your content as you see fit.


Working together


The Web may have initially brought the impersonalization of technology to the masses. But if so, the masses have adjusted the technology to inject personality back into it.

What's Web 2.0 about? It's about me and you working together.

So, what do you have to say about that?

Question: How have online tools changed how you interact with people you know?

Comments (9)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
There is a lot of truth to this. The technology has been adjusted! There are all kinds of benefits to that, but I think that there may also be drawbacks--and that the truth of how this has changed us and how we have changed it will not be known for some years, just as the changes the printing press made to society weren't truly understood until we could look back at it.

I have to be grateful for technology, because without it and these online tools, there are many dear people whom I would never have met--or even "met" (yourself included). For me, online tools have given me the opportunity to take what I have to say and present it in a casual way to dozens of people at a time. They have also allowed me to keep in touch with people that I already know but do not see often. Instead of having to e-mail copies of photos, or pay for printed copies and entrust them to the postal service, I can upload them, e-mail a link, and voila! Instant connection.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Kenneth Scott Latourette writes a bit about what you mentioned there, that history is not current events. It can't be understood without an analysis of what it caused, which can't be known until much later. In a sense, our accusations against "revisionist historians" should be met with a shrug. The application here is that you're right. We can't make the simple claim that Web 2.0 is "progress." But I have a very strong hunch that the collaborative nature of the new Web is better for the masses than the static presentation of the way it was.

I rejoice at the tools for human interaction in addition to advertising. The early Web's mechanism was too easy to control. "Follow the money." I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but a few large investors could have made sure we were reading what they wanted us to read.

Thanks for saying you're glad you've "met" me. :)
On the other hand, I wonder whether the instant availability of "knowledge" is shortchanging us of developing the ability to understand how to know whether something is good or bad. The classes that I am taking towards my degree talk about information literacy a lot. Older library patrons tend to be afraid of technology in all its forms--they managed to lead full, productive lives without it, and they don't want to deal with it. On the other hand, younger users are very, very skilled with technology--but they can't interpret information to know whether it's a good source or not. On the Internet, everyone has an opinion and can share it; everyone can feel like an expert; it's easy to look and sound professional--and it gets harder all the time to know whether the information we find is sound, or suspect.
1 reply · active 798 weeks ago
Maybe individual online reputation has replaced corporate reputation. We gravitate now towards those folks we feel we can trust, because they have a habit of sharing reputable information. (They're also quick to apologize when they don't!)

The more established set of folks are using resources that they've *heard* are pretty good. Now we have a chance to really find out for ourselves.
Wikipedia is an example of the lack of clarity. I like Wikipedia, don't get me wrong. I use it often. I think that, for casual use, it's great--and a great example of a fantastic resource put together by people like you and me. On the other hand, Wikipedia is taboo for reports and research because it isn't always a good source. Because it's assembled by a "cast of thousands," so to speak, with comparatively little editorial oversight, it's not a "best source" for information. I might use it to look up Prester John and figure out why his name is an important one in literature, but I'm not going to cite Wikipedia as my source...I'm going to use it as a springboard to find resources with more oversight and weight.

The ability to share information is a fantastic opportunity and wields a great bit of power--but not everyone uses it responsibly, and we end up with a certain amount of lack of clarity. Just like anything, really, there are upsides and downsides, and I think it will be some time before we see whether the good uses of this outweigh the negatives.
1 reply · active 798 weeks ago
The community doesn't really tolerate the irresponsible. If they get identified, they get ejected.

There's a social pressure to be responsible online with information now. I welcome that development!
I remember creating my first websites too. I don't think I created mine until about '98 though, I'm always a little behind the time.

This is a good comparison of some of the differences between Web 1 and web 2.0!
2 replies · active 614 weeks ago
The world has changed since you wrote that comment. Specifically, your place in it.

The fact that you think this is a good comparison makes me kinda giddy. Let me know if you want me to ghostwrite you a sidebar sometime.
OK... so I'm confused. Are you just REALLY slow at responding and it takes you 184 weeks to respond to comments or did you decide to have a nostalgia moment and go back to read some old posts of yours and the comments associated with them?

Anyway.... I don't think my place in the world has changed, it's just that other people's perception of my place has changed.

I'm still an overweight geek who knows less than people think and thinks more than people know! :-)

Post a new comment

Comments by