While I was reading , I have sometime heard of web 2.0 , what is it actually , and what's the last generation , what web 2.0 can do better .
It is marketing buzzspeak with no clear definition. If you've ever seen the Poochy episode of "The Simpsons" Web 2.0 is the internet equivalent of "proactive" - No self respecting web designer uses that term unless as an insult, or if dealing with Joe Sixpack in a Suit who thinks he can get good technical advice from the pages of Forbes. Same type of know-nothing dimwits who think Apple makes quality hardware, drives a Prius and gets all their furniture from Ikea... That or it comes from the lips of professional writers or professional lecturers - neither of whom have spent a day actually WORKING in the industry - so of course they can claim to be experts on the subject. It's a bit like my grandfather's old logic about the news - Whenever you read the newspaper or watch the news about an event you are involved in personally or have a working knowledge of, they get EVERY SINGLE DETAIL INCORRECT. If you cannot trust them for stuff you know about, how in blazes does one trust them on things you know nothing of? The whole "web 2.0" thing started when a bunch of self-proclaimed "names" in the industry got together at a con and took note of a bunch of EXISTING SITES built using EXISTING TECHNIQUES that had "replaced" older ones. Apart from that - the rest is rubbish, and if you encounter anyone saying otherwise, well... Let's just say that's a good indication they have no clue what they are talking about! But then, I get pissy whenever anything 'existing' suddenly has a new name slapped on it. See AJAX, SSI, and the everpresent 'virtual machine'.
You can go to O'Reilly, CNET and even Wikipedia for a pretty good overall definition. O'Reilly has charts and diagrams, if you wish. Beware of the Wikipedia article because the first few paragraphs contain some lack of knowledge which I should go and edit out. The only part of the rest of your post that I agree with is that many try and equate web 2.0 with web design and nothing could be further from the truth; so the term gets a bad name from those of us who are technically inclined. I also agree with the last part and I don't pay any attention to any of this because it just puts a name on a grouping of technologies, possibly just for the benefit of the conference. I may be wrong but it's not important to me and I'll use whatever I want, however I want, no matter what label you give it.
A dirty hippy credited with coining the term and/or the company he founded, a company known for throwing positive reviews to whoever throws the most money their direction for advertising, and 'truthiness' - great 'sources' there. (NOT that I'm saying a die hard floss supporter is naive and idealistic, that CNet hasn't had anything approaching integrity in a decade, or that Wikipedia is barely credible - OH WAIT!!!) I say, I say... That's a joke son. A sensitive mind won't stand being picked on. Though the wikipedia article IS a good read, since it too points out that many people in the industry (including TBL) call it what it is. A vague 'ideal' with no meat to it collecting together ideas THAT ALREADY EXISTED trying to use it as a rally cry for... for... Just what are the people thowing the word around trying to accomplish that the web wasn't already doing? But hey, I'm just a loud mouthed schnook!
Web 2.0 as the programming tools used to create the Web pages that were considered "cutting edge Web 2.0". This included AJAX and SOAP and other XML and JavaScript applications that allowed the readers to actually interact with the Web pages more like you would with an application on your desktop. Some application that is a form of Web 2.0. Some of the most popular examples are: - Gmail - Google Maps - Flickr - Del.icio.us - Tecnorati - Digg
A web 2.0 design? With the quality of "web 2.0" sites I've seen all over DP nowadays..the factor is easy: Open your logo in paint, use the eraser tool, and erase the corners of your images, and put a little white line through the middle of images. Seriously, that is genuinely how shoddy the quality of 'web 2.0' really is. Demoralised before it's even begun.
I agree with Deathshadow that the whole Web 2.0 thing is a hype. Just trying to rebrand the idea of social interaction and web page interactivity. The best point is, I think, "No self respecting web designer would use the term". It's a vague term that newbies use to, essentially mean - "New, interactive, social, and flashy" because they don't know the technical industry terms for the features. That being said, the Web 2.0 idea has taken the web by storm and because of it doing so, I wouldn't completely rule out the definition that Veolive has set for us, or for that matter, O'Reilly. In response to drhowarddrfine - Web 2.0 has always had everything to do with design. Because Web 2.0 is, for the most part, a term defined by the community, not a strict textbook or doctorine. The same people associate this Web 2.0 idea with "flashy web 2.0 designs", complete with reflections, glossy buttons, and the whole shebang. So, OP, a short answer to your question would be. If you're talking to a "Joe sixpack" as Deathshadow expertly put it, Web 2.0 would be the perfect term. If your talking to any kind of designer/progammer/normal person, it would be in your best interest not to bring up the, possibly humiliating term, Web 2.0. Thanks -Sasha
Thanks mate, good to see this whole confusion addressed here. People make something out of nothing these days.
It was never a vague term. O'Reilly coined the term so I think his definition would overrule all others, ya' think? If you read any of the interviews with O'Reilly, you will see his irritation with those who not only think it has anything with design, but that anyone thinks it has any unclear meaning.
drhowarddrfine - I have read everything O'Reilly has to say on it. And of course there there are definitions set by him, there are definitions set by other people. There is a difference however from the original introduction and the interpretation of the web community. This is simply proved right here, although we both clearly are educated webmasters/designers, our interpretations differ. You come from a community where Web 2.0 is has a clear definition, and I, from one that tries to stray away from the term. I would also like to stand corrected on the "newbiness" of the term. After thought, that was a generalization which doesn't in any way describe the countless designers and programmers who are much more experienced and talented than me and use the term Web 2.0. The problem is, however, what has this term done for us except confusion and make webmasters worry that their website isn't "Web 2.0"ish enough. It caused an an needed hype over something that we already have. It's clear that O'Reilly didn't reveal any new technologies of his own. He just encapsulated newer existing technologies and ideas into a term that implies that these technologies are superior. This created a hype of people inserting "new interactive comment boxes" and "Live chat!!!" and "RSS and ATOM feeds for my new Web 2.0 blog!". I'm not saying that these features are bad, I'm saying that the fact that every webmaster now tries to make their website, a 2.0 website. Even when these features aren't even needed, Just to comply with the "new standards". And that, I think, isn't right. -Sasha
So far, I have not found any misinterpretation by web professionals. Other than O'Reilly's definition, I only hear of it misinterpreted by those who, for whatever reason, think it has anything to do with design. But a misinterpretation is an error and does not change the definition and, perhaps, this is why I agree that people who attempt to use the term are looked at with disdain. And he never claimed to do so. Exactly. He organized it and gave it a name. As I said, not that I'm sure it does anything more than help those conferences. Yes, as you probably read O'Reilly commenting about. It helped people who know nothing about Web2.0 sell books and software to other clueless people, too.
Which is the origin of the real disdain for it - it started out as a simple label obseriving a shift in user use... but became used as a marketspeak buzzword that predators could use to prey upon the ignorance of Joe Average. Which is why I put most people who use the word to talk about DESIGN in the same category I put click-through link-whore's, e-mail spammers and phishers.