Web 2.0 look ?

what is this "web 2.0" look & why is it so special ??
so far all the web 2.0 logos I've seen look flat , with no depth or effects on text what so ever , very simplistic and the colors used are repetitive , like almost all I've seen had blue or orange
some basic details about it , why it is used & how it can be achieved would be useful
thanks !

 

Holy cow -- someone still using that term... and incorrectly at that.

Web 2.0 in terms of style is NOT what web 2.0 even meant, it is simply what people who failed to grasp what it meant perverted into being a sick buzzword.... Much like most people who bandy about HTML 5 these days.

Here's what web 2.0 MEANS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Anyone telling you it means something like colors or corners or appearance or any other such BS doesn't know enough about the web to be flapping their gums about it.

On the whole the term was only ever used by the types of ignorant marketing execs and suits who would give cash for vague promises -- basically the folks who think they can get sound technical advice from the pages of Forbes -- which is akin to getting sound financial advice from Popular Electronics.

Whenever anyone uses the term, I cringe. You might as well be talking about a totally proactive paradigm.

 

No, you need to correct their ignorance with education instead of patting them on the back, slapping the rose coloured glasses on their head and leading them down the garden path to failure. Education + nube != nube.

 

Chill. You're intellectual highness is not getting the point. I suggest you re-read the thread.

 

He (deathshadow) got the point alright. Web 2.0 has nothing at all to do with design. The term comes from, IIRC, a Tim O'Reilly keynote address at one of his publishing company's confabs. It refers to the movement into user interactions. Good, early examples include Amazon's customer ratings, blog comments and forums such as this: making the visitor a part of the process. One of the premier examples of "Web 2.0" is, of course, EBay, where nearly the entire site is visitor supplied content+auction+ratings.

Once the bs is stripped away, the question becomes one the OP should have no problem with answering for himself.

cheers,

gary

 

This thread is about Web 2.0 "look". There is no need to define and blah blah blah your knowledge all over a simple question; most of us know what 2.0 is and answering a simple question about "looks" with some sort of enthusiastic way off the point, fueled by the supposed importance of too many post, it makes you both sound like irrelevant hipsters - well, you upstairs, just because of the advocacy and repeating what the other one said. sarahk answered the question - there's no need to go all educator mode on pointless shit. the efing thread asks "special look" "logos" "colors" and we get some education on holy shits and just plain lulzy to read. go write articles on the topic if it bugs you that this and that is not what it is because of looks and etceteras.

 

None of which has jack to do with Web 2.0, which is the point being made. Lighten up and get a clue. The question was meaningless as related to Web 2.0. There is, and there never was a Web 2.0 "look". That was a bunch of BS presented by bunch of none too bright soi-disant "designers" who simply didn't know what they were talking about.

 

Which was ignorant BS and the sooner we tell a nube it's ignorant BS the better... As Gary just said it was a term thrown about by "designers" who know nothing beyond their tablets and Photoshop; those who - as I've been saying for years -- don't know enough about HTML, CSS, accessibility, emissive colourspace, or the limitations of the medium to be designing jack **** for web deployment.

Being enthusiastic about ignorant BS, slapping the rose coloured glasses on everyones head and leading them down the garden path to failure, singing kumbaya around a drum circle sure as shine-ola isn't helping anyone who actually wants to build a website visitors would want to visit or use! Generally speaking I find such 'enthusiasm' and apologistic idiocy for this type of garbage to be more offensive than the number of expletives in a semi-trailer filled with Andrew Dice Clay CD's. If we could stamp out the currently fashionable metrosexual sissy "Don't dare say anything negative" status quo FTMFW bull, maybe we could concentrate on making the world a better place.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw.

 

You do realize it's not a dilemma between "metrosexual sissy" and "I'm going to bite your head off for not using a defunct phrase properly". There is a middle ground that usually gets better results out of people than either of the 2 extremes you mention/exhibit.

 

While, imo, ds does tend to go overboard in certain areas, you must understand there is no "middle ground". Both ds and myself dislike for the gormless to bandy about terms for which they are ignorant of the meaning. The OP's question is one that depends on a premise that is not true. When you remove the untrue premise, the question itself nearly disappears. Let me illustrate by doing so:

Now, removing the false premise, that there is a "Web 2.0 look":

Now the question is simple, and the answer is, the "look" started showing up first on web designer/developer blogs and became the reigning fad. It is still appreciated by many for its modern, clean appearance. That's it.

cheers,

gary

 

Well @kk5st, you're right factually about "Web 2.0". I was mainly commenting on the method of correcting someone, not on whether or not you should. I'm all for educating noobs (I still am one in many areas) and correcting misconceptions.

 

Thank you. The problem is, at base, that it is difficult to be kind when the initial premise is false. There is no easy way to say your question has no basis, and is therefore nonsense. The best we can do is provide the knowledge base that the questioner can use to answer his own question or at least rephrase the question intelligently.

I should mention, in the interest of full disclosure, that my intro to technical bulletin boards (forums) and email lists was in the *nix/Linux world. There, the paradigm was to quash misinformation at the git-go, and to do so publicly for the benefit of the whole community. This could lead to some entertaining flame wars. In the long run, people learned more quickly and also learned that there was nothing personal to any harshness, and that quick putdowns of false statements helped the community.

The failure to step hard on misinformation (the ooh, don't say anything nasty paradigm) has led and does lead to a forum where an awful lot of the posts are simply sharing ignorance. This forum has a lot of that, itself. As bad money drives out the good, so do ignorant posters drive out the clueful. Replacing ignorance with knowledge is the best way to keep a forum vibrant.

cheers,

gary

//edit history: Too long to enumerate. You'd think I couldn't write basic English nor spell cat, given the C and the A.

 

Which is the polite way of saying the namby pamby light touch slap everyone on the back and tell them it's OK garbage does NOTHING but perpetuate ignorance. Probably why I find that "Oh it's how it was said" crap to be many, MANY times more offensive than the worst the Internet has for gross-out photos. OH NOES, somebody called something garbage, NOT THAT!!!

Three and a half decades of programming -- where the HELL is this wussy "wah wah" BS coming from. Has the latest generation coders been completely emasculated or something?!?

 

How could he respond when he gets essays to be marked lol

 

I give you the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It was written before you were born. It's not a new trend.

Edit: To be completely clear, I'm recommending that book. It's the best I've found on the subject and, even though it was written in 1936, it's still mostly relevant today.

 

Hey, just figured I'd give you a bit of information on your question about "Web 2.0" logos, since we seem to have swallowed your forum thread in endless bickering. Basically, design trends on the net were glossy, bright, animated designs in the early 2000's (what most people incorrectly know as "web 2.0"). The pendulum of what's in style swung to the opposite extreme now with minimalist, flat designs and somewhat muted colors (sometimes). Windows 8 with their "metro" design is a good example.

If you want to see what's popular now in design, I can't recommend enough http://dribbble.com/ . It's a site where professional designers post what they're working on right now, so you get an idea of what the best are doing in design.

Hope that helps and sorry for totally de-railing your thread. The wikipedia article linked above in the thread is a good resource for what "web 2.0" really is, or was as no one uses that term anymore.