In fact Chaitrali, you are using one of the powerful Web 2.0
applications in terms of usability which is Gmail. Another also by
google is Google Maps.
Some interesting links to design issues of RIA- Rich Internet
BBC News article again by Nielsen
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
On a related note. I know you asked about Web2.0 technology. But during the
*Future of Web Design* conference in NYC a few months ago, Elliot Jay
presented his view that the "Web2.0 look" is something that needs to be
destroyed. Even the term "Web2.0" seems controversial, depending on the
context within which it's being used...but after watching his highly
entertaining presentation, I'm inclined to agree that this look needs to go.
So just in case you or someone you care about is on the verge of creating a
reflected logo or a diagonally-striped background in order to support that
Web2 technology, please check out the following:
I am particularly fond of schematic's website
Really slick, clean. A little overwhelming, however, when you view
it from a high level
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:58 PM, James W.Bond Jr. wrote:
> I am particularly fond of schematic's website
I'm confused... how is a site built basically as a big Flash movie a
"web 2.0" web site?
Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world
e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422
your confusion is shared Andrei. I think the cause has more to do
with the term web2.0.
Running a little contrary to Tim O'Reilly's original thinking is
this alternate view from Nova Spivak : http://tinyurl.com/36byj9
Basing it on a timeline is a much more robust definition that we can
measure/define sites against.
Gloria: "Elliot Jay presented his view that the "Web2.0 look" is
something that needs to be destroyed"
We should never look back, its distracts from the now. No more hobo
rounded corners darlinks!
I wonder if we'll see some sort of parallel with the fashion world,
trend setting centers of design, whats in and whats out... and if
that also means Web1.0 is the equivalent of the 80's - the decade
that shall never be mentioned.
With all due respect, Pauric, I like Tim O'Reilly's vision of Web
"It's really about data and who owns and controls, or gives the
best access to, a class of data."
All the rest is bells and whistles, much ado about nothing. Lipstick
on a pig, as one clever member of this forum put it. Fashion can be
timeless or ridiculous, and most of it of any era is the latter.
I do like the "look and feel" presented by James Bond's example,
but try to navigate schematic.com without a mouse. Design that
hinders or disallows basic functionality should not be considered a
step forward, but in these wild west days of Web 2.0, it often is.
Google Mail is a much better example of taking Web 2.0 in a positive
direction, and user response to it is proof.
Suggested reading in the fiction section: "Ender's Game," by Orson
Scott Card. Ender changed the world by teaching himself to think
multidimensionally. Emerging technologies on the Web don't evolve in
a straight line, as the Nova Spivak diagram suggests, and timelines
are most useful in hindsight. A better mental model might be based on
atomic models in chemistry -- the periodic table, covalent bonding,
the double helix and such.
As it happens, I am deep in writing a book about interaction design
and Web 2.0, so I've been thinking a lot about the definition of Web
2.0. I'd be really happy to get your thoughts about it.
Like Jeff, I like elements of the O'Reilly definition a lot.
However, it is too old to serve as a good definition of Web 2.0 as it
exists today. The web has evolved a lot since 2005.
Here is how I am now conceptualizing it:
1. Web 2.0 is an evolutionary stage in the web. The maturation of
several technologies has created a qualitative change in our ability
to create rich web applications with UI's that approach the quality
of interactions that can be designed for a desktop computer.
2. Web 2.0 is comprised of three dimensions:
- the information web
- the service web
- the relationship web
I usually show this as a pie chart with three sectors.
The value of thinking about Web 2.0 as these three dimensions is that
it focuses on three sets of capabilities that define current web
The Information Web: Delivering Content
In Web 1.0 this was the HTML web. Now, with cheap storage, large
databases and XML we have the ability to manage large amounts of
content. For example, you can now read the New York Times on-line and
navigate it comfortably. As Web 3.0 matures, this dimension will take
its next evolutionary step.
The Service Web: Processing
The service web is about the ability to perform sophisticated
computer processing. In Web 1,0, only lightweight processing was
possible without huge investments in programming. This limited most
web sites to fairly simple transactions. A few services like merchant
gateways were available but building a complex environment like Amazon
or Ebay was a massive development effort.
Improvements in databases and programming platforms (Java, .Net, for
example) and the development of standards like web services has
changed this. It enables businesses to develop "industrial
strength" web applications that are capable of performing serious
processing and managing huge databases while interacting with the
user through a browser interface. This makes every web site a
potential web application.
The Relationship Web: Communication, Collaboration and User Created
The relationship web is the dimension that enables communication and
collaboration. Much of this is peer to peer, so users can interact
with each other. Users can also create content and share it.
The relationship web is made possible possible because of broadband
connectivity and the greatly improvement in the power of desktop
computing. This enables. for example, a user with a desktop to create
and edit video, upload it to YouTube and share it with millions of
What do you all think?
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:46:09, Jeff Seager <abrojos at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I do like the "look and feel" presented by James Bond's example,
> but try to navigate schematic.com without a mouse. Design that
> hinders or disallows basic functionality should not be considered a
> step forward, but in these wild west days of Web 2.0, it often is.
> Google Mail is a much better example of taking Web 2.0 in a positive
> direction, and user response to it is proof.
I agree the site isn't accessible, but is that a goal of the site? Are
the majority of their potential clients going to be trying to use the
site w/o a mouse, using a screen reader, etc? Most likely not. They
might be there to get an impression of the capabilities of the
company, and they'll probably be looking for great graphic design and
a unique experience that leaves an impression. The site accomplished
exactly that, at least to me. It's original, looks great and is fun &
easy to use. I spent about 10 minutes just playing around and looking
at the firms work. I agree with Robert's comment that the site is
I feel like we get carried away on standards, guidelines, etc. Those
are appropriate in most cases, but there's nothing wrong with a site
that focuses on originality, fun & aesthetics. If accessibility is a
concern, they could easily make a toned down standards compliant html
version that houses the same content and is completely accessible.
Jeff, I'm not suggesting one definition is generally better than the
other. The philosophical and the implementation views compliment each
other. O'Reilly succinctly described what the new technologies were
enabling, at a high level. I do believe the perspective put forward
by Spivak helps us look at the layer down from O'Reilly to
understand what was, is and might be. And, in the context of this
thread, help us decide objectively if a flash site can be described
as having 2.0-like functionality or just brochureware in shinny 2.0
styling. I feel its very much the latter.
I used the word alternate, as in perspective, not opposing view. I
could have phrased that better.
Now, you said "All the rest is bells and whistles, much ado about
nothing" I think its a little more chicken and egg than that. You
cant have "data and who owns and controls, or gives the best access
to, a class of data." without the underlying technology to enable
that. And until we see what is made of the underlying nuts and
bolts, we wont be able to predict what the next burst in innovation
will be. Nova's model helped him predict where things are heading:
http://www.twine.com/ and I believe he's on the money.
"Emerging technologies on the Web don't evolve in a straight line"
The Spivak graph plots complexity against time, similar to Moores Law
and in line with the general continuous evolution of technology. Of
course nothing evolves in a straight line.
"A better mental model might be based on atomic models in chemistry
%u2014 the periodic table" And the periodic table was used to
predict elements that did not occur naturally. I accept the graph is
overly simplistic but reject that its fundamentally flawed in
capturing what is 2.0 and what might be 3.0, 4.0 etc I've yet to
see a better infograph of what leads to singularity.
take care, p
Charlie, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.
"The value of thinking about Web 2.0 as these three dimensions is
that it focuses on three sets of capabilities that define current web
I realized that I should have pointed out that Nova's graph should
be viewed as having 3 axis, whether that was his intention or not:
again - http://tinyurl.com/36byj9
x = social complexity, or as Charlie describes it, the relationship
y = increasing depth of semantic connection, roughly mapping on to
what you describe as the 'The Service Web', am I correct in that
z = time, now you describe this as 'The Information Web' I'm
inclined to think that based on your description of this part of your
piechart that you're looking at what becomes enabled as technology
advances, which is based on time.
very interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts, looking forward
to the book
regards - pauric
I see why you are making the connection with the Nova Spivak model.
My model is compatible with it but I don't think that my three
dimensions map to his.
Spivak is showing a timeline of how technology evolution brings the
web to new levels. I agree with his characterization and in my post I
tried to outline my view of the technologies that have led to the
What I am trying to do with my model is to characterize the web as it
exists today. i think of it as Web 2.1 - more evolved than the web 2.0
that O'Reilly described.
Think about the types of activities you can do on a web site:
1. You can view content. That's the dimension of the information
web. Information architects and publishers would be highly involved
with that dimension.
2. You can execute transactions. You can pay for something, execute a
search, or perform another transaction. This requires some heavy
computing and I think of the service web.
3. You can communicate and collaborate. Post on a blog or do what we
are doing right now. That's the relationship web.
Any particular web application will probably have all three but in
varying amounts. Fo example, YouTube is strong on the information
side (lot's of content) and moderate on the relationship side (some
community but not really sophisticated).
Facebook is high on the relationship web dimension but not
particularly focused on content.
Amazon's S3 (Simple Storage Service) is a "utility" that allows
programs to obtain as much storage as they requires. So if I have a
web application and I need to store a 2GB movie, I can just connect
to Amazon and ask it for the storage. They'll bill me monthly for it
as long as I use it. That's a service web function.
Now if Amazon decided to add a discussion forum so users of S3 could
talk about their experiences, that would add more of the relationship
web. And if they posted detailed reports on usage, that would bring in
the information web.
I will say that for me, the value of this model is simply to get
everyone on the same page. No model is going to be perfect but people
seems to respond to this one when I give talks on Web 2.0 and it helps
lay the foundation for further discussion.