The term "Web 2.0" has been over-used - even abused. Rather than having no meaning as some critics have protested, it in fact has too many.
Its excessive and divergent use has weakened it; so much so that it no longer has any recognisable identity. The term Web 2.0 has had the semantic stuffing knocked out of it by exuberant Web players who want to associate themselves and their work with this popular buzz phrase.
However, blaming its current weakness on popular misuse is not fair, as many saw the term as a flimsy concept to start with. The grand-daddy of the Web, Tim Berners-Lee, argued that the term was redundant and thus difficult to use in any meaningful way, since many of the technology components of Web 2.0 have existed since the early days of the Web.
On the other hand, one could nominate salient criteria that would encapsulate Web 2.0. My introduction a few years ago resulted in four components of the meaning being ingrained into my association and understanding:
Social networking:
This is one of the more obvious manifestations of O'Reilly's cautioning that Web 2.0 "does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use webs". Web 2.0 has seen an explosion of intensified, multi-directional, and intelligently maintained linkages of data and humans; linkages which are mostly user-generated and merely producer/hoster-facilitated. Examples abound, with Flickr, Facebook, and blog aggregators the most obvious.
Working towards a truly semantic Web:
This ties in closely with the first point, in that it refers to making linkages and knowledge more meaningful and accessible. Although the term semantic Web most accurately refers to specific technologies and languages which aim to increase the amount of meta information one could generate and draw from entities and data on the Web, it has also manifested in attempts to centralise previously separated types of information; a separation which in the past caused a disjuncture in user experiences.
Google is the master and slave of this centralisation. My single Google profile, which I created with the intention of making use of Gmail, now grants me networked access to online documents, calendar, mapping, image publishing, and Web user tracking tools.
Cybercultural euphoria:
This has many dimensions. This generally emanates from the belief that the Web can change our lives for the better. This is the evangelistic portion of the Web 2.0 service. Like most dogmas, it has some obvious flaws, which are hidden by blind faith and vague details.
Design trends:
This could be seen as a parasite of the Web 2.0 definition; an illegal hanger-on. Nonetheless, let's do a quick test: Do any of the following elements ring a bell? Rounded corners, gradients, the rise of gloss (shiny things sitting on even shinier surfaces), sans serif fonts, flowing designs that seem to ignore the rigidity of HTML grid structure, and generally increasing the number of visual dimensions on Web pages.
It is hard not to notice how the average Web page has been transformed from a one-dimensional aesthetic eyesore to something that jumps out at and mesmerises the user with three-dimensional imagery and functional aesthetics.
Design criteria are exhaustive enough for many people in labelling a site as Web 2.0. These aesthetic elements have given identifiable colour to common understandings of the movement. However, is this colouring merely coincidental, as apposed to being an important element within it?
Even though I believe both the former and latter to be true, I am going to propose my own definition of what Web 2.0 has come to stand for. It is a definition which relies heavily on the belief that contemporary design trends are in fact a crucial part of Web 2.0. It is, therefore, also a definition that highlights the term's semantic theft from its original creators.
Another definition?
The Web 2.0 trend is a refashioning of the Web in response to its consolidated induction into mainstream culture. This refers to its post dot-com-crash rally as an important cultural tool.
Blaming its current weakness on popular misuse is not fair, as many saw the term as a flimsy concept to start with.
Alex Maughan is a senior Web application implementer, interface designer, and Flash developer for Cambrient Internet Applications.
As Web producers, we are now faced with a proliferation of users that best resemble ADHD kids running around in an information-dazed sugar high. They are clicker-happy, and easily distracted. They are as easily frustrated - throwing tantrums when confused.
Thus, this refashioning refers to doing what we can to rein in the sugar-happy brats; have them sit down and focus; mother them; and tell them everything is going to be OK.
* In part two, I'll introduce Johnny, the mythical consumer, what his needs are and how we'll address them in a Web 2.0 world.
* Alex Maughan is a senior Web application implementer, interface designer, and Flash developer for Cambrient Internet Applications.
Share