Web 3.0 316
SpunOne writes "Apparently Jeffrey Zeldman is as sick of Web 2.0 as many of us have become. In his latest article, titled "Web 3.0," he really sticks it to the Web 2.0 fan boys, and dispels a lot of the hype generated by our young new friends. It's easy to grow apathetic when a new idea gains so much traction so quickly, but his points are clear and accurate, and deserve consideration."
Paul Graham (Score:5, Interesting)
Screw that, I wrote about Web 4.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead, I propose that:
Web 1.0 is about allowing individuals to create and share ideas.
Web 2.0 is about allowing groups to create and share ideas.
Web 3.0 is about allowing societies to create and share ideas.
The article speculates about the future of blogging and how digital identity will have a much more profound impact on the Web than AJAX and that stuff. This is because, as Howard Rheingold said, "The "killer apps" of tomorrow's mobile infocom industry won't be hardware devices or software programs but social practices."
Anyway, if you are interested you can read the rest [alexkrupp.com].
Web 2.0: Hype or Real?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just so. Indeed, may I just offer, amid all this indignant debunking, a simple metric based on fact rather than prejudgement?
One of the many blogs hosted at SOA Web Services Journal [wsj2.com] is one by Web 2.0 Workgroup member Dion Hinchcliffe. In terms of page views, the blog [wsj2.com] crossed the 500K mark after just over 90 days...here are the exact stats:
Hits since 24 Sep 2005:
502,587
(4,786.54 per day)
Total Blog Entries:
55
(0.52 per day)
Total Comments: 396
The topic of Web 2.0, and related offshoot movements like Identity 2.0, TV 2.0, Democracy 2.0, Law 2.0 [abanet.org] is a major grassroots topic of interest. It's as simple as that.
To the detractors one can only remind them what Bill Watterson used to say: "It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept."
Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (Score:5, Interesting)
First, where did you get your development cycle and why would you not implement XMLHTTP to begin with (the first development phase)? No wonder your ideas are getting shot down
But, I digress. To be honest, I have been using XMLHTTP going on three years now, since well before it was known as AJAX and there are problems that it, and Javascript, solve. I would imagine it all has to do with the type of problem. In my case, I was involved in a project that implemented JSR-168 portlets in a Jetspeed environment. Unfortunately, we had requirements that each portlet had to refresh with data, some at 5 second increments, some updates would be 5 minutes. So, you have a user configurable portal and each portlet had to be dynamic. Sure, you could use a full page refresh, but that would require the refresh time to be set to the shortest duration. Plus, some of the data we presented would require a sizable pull from our Oracle database. Doing that every 5 seconds would have been a nightmare. So, each portlet has its own Javascript implementation that inherits a base XMLHTTP class. Works like a charm and met every one of the customer's timing requirements.
Additionally, I wrote an image looper that worked a great deal like a media player that would update itself with data as new images arrived (it was a weather project). Instead of refreshing the popup window, XMLHTTP was used to retrieve a listing of images and add any new ones to the list. It was pretty cool stuff.
Should XMLHTTP be how we do all web solutions? No, I totally agree with that. But it does present the developer with some unique ways of doing things.
Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems? (Score:2, Interesting)
At their heart, Web 2.0 technologies are being used to improve accessibility and information through standardization and better dissemination modules. But you can also look at the overall shift in the Web of today versus the Web of yesterday:
You can take the Web of today with you.
You can personalize the Web more than ever, with greater precision, on every site.
You can find content on the Web easier, and can regenerate content based on keywords and searches effortlessly.
You can "tag" any information you find on the web, making things easier to sort, easier to filter, easier to find.
In short, the real power of Web 2.0 is that it can put 100% control in the hands of the users. All that junk about breaking back buttons is just noise, a smoke screen that suggests almost as much about the complainer as the complaint.
Everyone should go read what Clay Shirky has to say about Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Seriously, it's bigger than one web method or flashy new language.
Re:More like 0.2 than 2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
You lose:
Of course, you could implement the missing parts yourself, but the extra layer of abstraction that is "Web 2.0" remains pointless. To my mind, a far better approach would be to push the advantages of AJAX down onto the platform, rather than push the advantages of the platform up into AJAX.
For example you could use things like Java Web Start [sun.com], or the OSGI framework that underpins Eclipse, to simplify product installation. Once you've got that, you can build a much more flexible application that integrates better with the host OS and runs that much closer to the hardware.
I strongly suspect that the whole "Web 2.0" idea is only creating any hype because Web designers have now realised that they can create relatively complex applications without having to learn anything new.
Forget the Buzzword (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't understand why people have such a distaste for all things labeled 'Web 2.0.' I'm not a fan of buzzwords, and there's nothing I hate more than a middle manager with a head full of technologies he knows nothing about. But let's forget about all that and think about what it is we are trying to accomplish. I don't know about you, but I would like to make better web sites. Web sites with better usability.
Let's face it, Tim Berners-Lee never fathomed the web would be used the way we use it today. The HTML protocol was just not made to support rich e-mail clients that check our spelling as we type, or maps that allow us to drag them around transparently gathering information from the server in the background without refreshing the page. I don't see how anybody could disagree with the fact that these features enhance a user's experience on the web, and they would simply not be possible without AJAX or some other still undiscovered technology.
The sooner we stop complaining about people improperly using 'Web 2.0' buzzwords and start thinking about what this technology gives us as web developers and how we can embrace it and enhance it, the better off we will be, and the better off the users of our sites will be.
You said something there... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, it did, didn't it? At least for tech consumers, anyway? Are not people walking around in a little personal impenetrable bubble of technology with iPods and cells and whatever else hanging off them like bandoliers and gun belts of the Wild West?
Oddly enough, this creates a rather paradoxical effect, where people directly involved with tech become the biggest Luddites. What was wrong with the old Web? The technology? Not likely. The problem that has always existed is that technology doesn't solve problems without proper application, meaning that you need a problem to solve. Tech's a tool. It's there to accomplish a task in a larger abstraction, not to exist by itself. Using the inappropriate tools to accomplish the tasks of a larger abstraction, or by pursuing abstractions which have little value added to anyone is the problem of the Web (which is where online commercial ventures go wrong), not that we're using straight HTML or XHTML.
Personally, I'm waiting for Web 5.5. I hear it cures cancer, balances your checkbook, and cooks you a hot meal (even if only someone you know uses it!). I'd have said Web 5.0, but that version balances your cancer, cooks your checkbook, and cures you of the need for hot meals.
Re:It is a way to get another bubble (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet at the time it was claimed that the Information Superhighway (remember that one?) was going to totally change the way we lived. The new economy because the old one was just not the way to do it anymore. You actually had companies loosing stock value because they had not announced an internet strategy. Profits? Who cares.
In hindsight of course it all seems perfectly silly.
You've managed to misunderstand a lot. First, valuation is about future growth not today's profits. It was then and is now and always will be, in this system we have. Enormous potential will always give high valuations because it means investments will grow. It doesn't matter if you're not making any money. If you have a good plan and a great position, we get the right CEO, the right investors, a bitchin finance person and lawyers, and you're set. This has never changed.
The bubble was a time of great experimentation. It's really not obvious what the right answers are in new territory, but if people are free to try them out, the good ones are frequently found. We needed all those dumb ideas to be tried. Many were simply ahead of their time: it's easy to imagine the logical next few steps without being able to take them.
Web 2.0 is the web's adolescence. Basic problems of infancy are fixed, but lots of difficulties remain. Wait for another go round for your dream tech - 3.0 isn't as much of a joke as TFA's author thinks it is. The social network thing seems like it could result in secure identity, solving the account proliferation problem. ie, you'll log onto the entire web in a way. It's the last remaining big problem. I'd call that 3.0.
Re:what's (Score:2, Interesting)