On May 7, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Doug LaRue wrote:
isn't "Web 2.0" really just Lotus Notes but using open standards?
Depends on how you define "Web 2.0" (and the lack of definition is responsible for some of the ridiculous hyperbole). I most commonly see it meaning one of two things, depending on focus:
1) Focus on technology -- anything that uses AJAX and DHTML/CSS as opposed to full-page round trips and standard HTML. This would probably be closer to the "Lotus Notes" meaning, though not much currently works offline (it's coming, ref: Google Gears). Given this definition, things like GMail or Google Maps would count as "Web 2.0."
2) Focus on community and "crowdsourcing" -- anything that takes advantage of its user base to add/modify/moderate its content. Slashdot's user comment moderation was an early start. Digg and Reddit are modern interpretations of that. Wikipedia, Flickr, Youtube... anything that involves tagging... the list goes on. Blogs and things like Twitter are also tangentially related.
In many cases the two are combined... modern web development toolkits like Ruby on Rails have become synonymous with Web 2.0 because they make developing community websites on AJAX technology reasonably simple.
I personally tend toward definition #2, as I think the technology is simply an evolutionary step that's not really relevant long term. I'm in Bob's camp that a large percentage of the "Web 2.0" stuff is crap... but that's because we have a mix of new ideas and some new technology with a very low barrier to entry. As a result there are millions of people experimenting with the pieces... not every combination is going to be a winner, but without failures no one is going to learn anything.
-- Joshua Penix http://www.binarytribe.com Binary Tribe Linux Integration Services & Network Consulting -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
