Wednesday, April 30, 2008

How Is Web 2.0 Different From Web 1.0?

Web 2.0 is a term that has not yet been clearly defined. Web 2.0 is commonly understood to be a second phase of Internet architecture comprising of Web applications that enable users to engage in a dialogue with other users rather than semi-actively consume posted content. The 2.0 in Web 2.0 alludes to the version number commonly reserved for the designation of software upgrades. Thus Web 2.0 indicates an improvement or upgrade of the World Wide Web. Web 1.0 was initially hailed as the medium that would make extinct the passive media consumer. However, this statement appears to be more true of Web 2.0 applications because they invite users to belong to communities, shape those communities and collaboratively contribute towards their creation and development. Thus, although Web 1.0 applications and sites require users to actively navigate through cyber-space, it wasn’t until the adoption of Web 2.0 applications that users were able to shape and manipulate the appearance and content of their ‘cyber-scape’.

The "retroactively labelled Web 1.0" was, and still is, a form of the Internet that speaks to users and consumers instead of with them. Web 1.0 represents a less dynamic space for professional or specialised publication rather than user interaction. There is no denying that Web 1.0 applications will continue to exist as the performance of specific tasks rely on its rigidity. Internet banking and other Web applications that require a secure environment will continue to operate using the characteristics of Web 1.0. The portion of the Internet that is expanding exponentially however is based on Web 2.0 applications and hence the hype, interest and activity surrounding these new age Web applications.

 

Web 2.0 is a term that incorporates the trends of user publishing, including both blogs and wikis. Furthermore, Web 2.0 is in part, characterised by the social phenomenon of distributing web content itself. Enabled by the open communication pathways, the decentralisation of authority and the freedom to share and reuse material, Web 2.0 is challenging many of the conventions established for broadcast media and even Web 1.0 applications. Web 2.0 also indicates a more organised version of the Web, which is has resulted from the act of ‘tagging’ and folksonomical classification systems which are user established, popular and intuitive rather than systematic. More loosely, Web 2.0 is a buzzword that includes everything newly popular on the web such as tagging, pod-casting, RSS feeds and social networking.

 

Perhaps the best way of distinguishing between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is to compare the brand names, web sites and web applications characteristic of each:

 

Web 1.0

 

Web 2.0

 

 

 

DoubleClick

-->

Google AdSense

Kodak Gallery

-->

Flickr

Akamai

-->

BitTorrent

mp3.com

-->

Napster

Britannica Online

-->

Wikipedia

personal websites

-->

blogging

evite

-->

upcoming.org and EVDB

domain name speculation

-->

search engine optimization

page views

-->

cost per click

screen scraping

-->

web services

publishing

-->

participation

content management systems

-->

wikis

directories (taxonomy)

-->

tagging ("folksonomy")

stickiness

-->

syndication

 

(O’Reilly 2005, 1)

 

The transformation of websites from discrete and disconnected information posits to highly linked sources of content and functionality thus serving as a computing platform extending web applications to end users, marks Web 2.0 as the next generation. I believe Web 2.0 embodies what we all expected the Internet to be in the first place. Certainly, Web 2.0 is closer to the democratic, personal, interactive and DIY medium of communication originally conceived by Tim Burner-Lees.

Beyond Web 2.0

Already we are seeing propositions of another evolution in Web development called Web 3Di. The distinction between Web 2.0 and Web 3Di is fundamentally a matter of co-creation and a freedom or liberty to change website structures entirely. Dr Tony O'Driscoll explains this concept in his YouTube video below. However, I question whether Web 3Di is really distinguishable from Web 2.0 or is this just classification for nomenclature and categorizations sake or will the future of Web applications embody Web 3Di's premise to substantiate the distinction?

  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Nicholas Negroponte 1984 Interface Interactivity and Learning

The rise of social networking and user-generated participation can also be seen in the online gaming industry with the internet shifting gaming from an independent experience to a more complex, social one. Funk (2005, 396) suggests that online gaming has become increasingly popular especially with the rise of Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOG) which are played simultaneously by potentially thousands of players.

Funk goes to explain that multi-player games are enhancing social connections as users can communicate in a variety of ways which in turn encourages team play and co-operation. This is true to an extent. In terms of online relationships the social connection is definitely there as users can communicate with each other in an online social setting (i.e Second LifeSims Online). Hypothetically however, what would happen to a gamer if suddenly the power went out and they instantly lost all connections to the internet and their online social world? In the end they may realise that they have become so dependent on a single machine; a machine which takes users to a completely intangible world that can be whisked away in a matter of seconds. But this can be said for many people…think about the amount of time you spend on Myspace and Facebook? Check out this site if you are addicted to Myspace. It has some helpful tips...

“Social interaction and communication has a physical element that does not and can not exist in an online network” Jenkins (2006). Furthermore, Jenkins (2006) suggests that “while gaming cultures can extend past the world of the internet…physical communication and the element of touch is lost on these online cultures”. I have to agree with this idea because at the end of the day we can have as many Myspace and Facebook accounts as we could possibly have but it is true human interaction that will stand the test of time (and power outages)!

This said however, there are examples of MMOGs include Everquestand The Sims Community which rely on social experiences and network participation for their success. Currently, Everquest is estimated to have over 90 000 players at any one time online (Marshall 2005, 297). But this game is not without its problems either with gamers becoming addicted (known as EverCrack) leading to dangerous antisocial behaviour. On a more lighter note, the Sims has built up a community of fans who can participate in forums, blogs, discussions, chat, fansites, podcasts and contests. Fans of the Sims are now creating custom-made products for the game ranging from furniture to clothes, appliances and houses. Check out this site to see what some fans get up to…While on one of these sites I saw that a user had created a soft drink vending machine which got me thinking that perhaps big businesses should really capitalise on this movement and create their own merchandise and products that users can interact with. This would definitely improve the interaction between consumer and product. For instance users could see their Sim enjoying a tastyChicko roll and want to experience this same utter joy too! Additionally, Sims 2 players are using the game to create and edit music videos which they then upload onto Youtube. These contributors are produsers as they are not only using the program but are creating their own content (Bruns 2008). Gamers in online worlds can participate in many-to-many forms of communication and one-to-one correspondences (Marshall, 2005, p.297). Traditional games such as Literati (similar to Scrabble) andisketch (alike Pictionary) have also been transformed into online games resulting in players being able to interact and chat across the globe (Marshall 2004, 68). 

The online game Neopets not only encourages responsibility and care for pets but also provides users with the tools to trade and communicate with each other on a one-to-one basis through neomail and chat options. Marketers are becoming increasingly more intrigued by this online world as a means of communicating with a young target demographic. This site gives a clear explanation of how marketers are using the site for their commercial advantage which presents some moral questions to ponder. For instance there are Neopets toys, A General Mills neopet cereal, a neopets game for Sony Playstation and a neopets magazine (Pace 2006). Other games also rely on human-to-human interaction to manage and organize the game and “interactivity in these games becomes a kind of cultural production albeit contained within the framework of the game’s rules” (Marshall 2004, 69). One example of an interactive electronic game especially designed for children was Nintendogs(Banks 2002). With a catch phrase, “don’t just socialize your pup, socialize yourself,” Nintendogs enabled thousands of players to chat online, discuss their own individual experiences and join social groups (including the Nintendo Kennel Club) (Banks 2002). This consequently enabled players to become active and contributing members who further expanded the social and cultural context of the game and its experiences. Marketers can jump on board in these instances, for example Pedigree Petfood could advertise within the medium and embed its brand within the online community quite nicely. The possibilities are truly endless…

References

  1. Banks, J. 2002. ‘Everybody knows that gaming makes people antisocial and violent’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture Gaming Cultures at Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, on 11 May 2002.
  2. Bruns, A. 2008. The Future is User-led: The Path Towards Widespread Produsage? http://www.produsage.org/files/Produsage%20-%20Introduction.pdf (accessed April 7, 2008).
  3. Funk, J. 2005. Video Games. Adolescent Medicine Clinics, 16(1): 395-411.
  4. Jenkins, H. 2006. Reality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked.http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html(accessed April 22, 2008).
  5. Marshall, D. 2004. New Media Cultures. London: Arnold.
  6. Marshall, D. 2005. Computer Games. In The Media and Communications in Australia, ed. S. Cunningham and G. Turner. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
  7. Kids And Neopets: Who's Getting Fed? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/national/main1293944.shtml?source=search_story (accessed 22 April 2008).

Thursday, April 10, 2008

MUDs, MOOs, MMORPGs and me

A funny thing has happened to my opinion whilst studying this subject, it has, wait for it... changed. Unbelieveable, I know, but true nonetheless, and for the better I think. So what is this thing that has changed me, and what opinion is it that has changed? Online socialistation, I was one of the sceptics, I never believed that a person who was truly happy with their 'real-word' social life would feel the need to explore the online world to expand thier horizons. But the strangest thing happened, I myself began to become involved with online social networking and also the use of Avatars, not explicitly, but through MMORPG's. The game is called Grand Theft Auto IV and I am sure you have heard of it, you can play online and the game automatically assigns a character to represent you. But I wasn't happy with my selection, I was a short and giggly chick ---> sorry GTA but that's not me. And so the customisation process began. I am now a trim, athletic looking guy who surely is faster than the rest of the other Avatars in the game. So low and behold withing the space of 5 minutes I had developed a relationship with this character. And it appears that I am not the only one. After watching a video in class (which I cannot seem to find the link for anymore), I was completely gobsmacked by the sheer success of the online world, literally another society, called Second LifeSo the following are some points raised in the video and my reactions to these: - I noticed a significant generation gap in interest of Second Life interaction. The average age of users is 32 years old, MINDBOGGLING, who would have ever thought the older generations would latch onto this technology so prolifically? Not me that is for certain. And yes I am sure there is a significant number of users that are younger but I noticed a general consensus in our class after watching the video and that is that we, Generation Y, are quite pessimistic towards the 'game'. We were worried about the effects of use, what people actually saw in it, etc. yet a great number of us also reflected an interest in at least trying out Second Life. The Boomer generation, those in the average age gap for usage, are quite optimistic and intrigued, reflected primarily in the video and by some outside opinions I have heard. So why the difference? This is something I will HAVE to explore at a later date! - There is a real economy in Second Life, and the virtual world possesses a GDP that is the equivalent of some third world countries such as Bulgaria. WHOA. That's right people are actually spending real cash online. That's a scary thought, but the program is free to join and are we all not willing to pay for entertainment? PerhapsSecond Life is onto something here, they may have just discovered a new age way for economic exchange. Third parties are developing content,form the individual, to the corporate business, la produsageAnd many venture capitalists realise that this is indeed a new economy investment.

- Back to the content production, it is simply amazing, no one asks users to create it. But they do nonetheless. Has living a Second Lifebecome a labour of love? People's creativity is driven, and whether this be from their own knowledge, education, or interests in something appears irrelevant.

- So my concern appear unwarranted. I used to believe there was a major difference between living a 'real' life and living vicariouslythrough a second one, such as in Second Life. I do still maintain some semblance of this notion, I believe these programs should be used to expand ourselves as people, but not as a substitutes. Explore yourself, and if it makes life easier and more enjoyable then embrace it. Consume it, produce it, but simply do not let it consume or produce YOU. What we can do in the 'real' world now appears re-creatable in the cyber world, so enjoy and explore.

The old saying "you only live once" now appears redundant? Just askyourself, which life are you living? And does it really matter?