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 |
| | |
| --> | ||
| --> | ||
| --> | ||
| --> | ||
| --> | ||
| 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?
2 comments:
I tend to agree with your scepticism over whether Web3Di is really a beneficial term. There's been no shortage of attention being given to the next development of the online environment, whether that be web2.1, web3.0 or web3Di.
While I can see the distinctions made in the case for Web 3Di, the principles outlined as distinctly 3Di have traditionally been associated with 2.0. The narrator in this YouTube video claims ‘collaboration’ as the key term of 3Di, but as you point out in your post, collaboration is a Web2.0 feature. The use of Wikipedia and Open Source developments as examples of 3Di also seems largely unfair as they have both been characterized as exemplary 2.0 phenomenon.
Further, the premise of any new technological web-development, especially in the short-term, seems a little ambitious to me, given that a distinct component of Web2.0 is the perpetual beta and inherent “unfinished” state of all content. If Web2.0 is a way of describing evolving content, how can the web have evolved from evolution? Colin Douma of the Canadian Marketing Association (2007) puts it this way, “A property that is in "perpetual beta" does not allow for "versioning".”
It would be remiss to assume that web-development has reached its peak, and that there will be no need for definition of future trends, but I think it is too early to start defining the next stage of “webvolution”. My personal prediction (and that's all it is!) is that the next phase in web development will be more about the mediums, rather than the content. Technology development will focus on the integration of already available online content and services into everyday lives: Internet refrigerators, hyperlocal content-sharing GPS, Internet radio, alarm clocks with RSS feeds and extensive mobile Internet will no longer be a novelty, but a way of life.
Reference:
Douma, C. 2007. Why there will never be a Web3.0. Canadian Marketing Association. http://www.canadianmarketingblog.com/archives/2007/03/why_there_will_never_be_a_web_1.html (accessed April 24, 2008).
Post a Comment