So what and where is your web 2.0?
- Thread starter Giaguara
- Start date
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
I would say that about the only web 2.0 that I'm using now is MySpace. I almost went ahead and set up a RoundCube webmail server which uses AJAX, but it wasn't happy about having to run on a Windows 2000 Server box. 
. Oh, and GMail if you count that as web 2.0.
Also, do podcasts count? They pretty much became popular around 2005, when web 2.0 was just coming into the mainstream. At least that's when I started to listen to a lot of podcasts.
I also have something akin to a blog on my family website, but it's not true "web 2.0". I update it manually, so I guess it's more like web 1.5.
. Oh, and GMail if you count that as web 2.0.Also, do podcasts count? They pretty much became popular around 2005, when web 2.0 was just coming into the mainstream. At least that's when I started to listen to a lot of podcasts.
I also have something akin to a blog on my family website, but it's not true "web 2.0". I update it manually, so I guess it's more like web 1.5.
There have been "blogs" since the beginning of the web, really. Community sites: Same thing. If all web 2.0 is is the use of "multimedia" and AJAX on "community sites", then it's simply not anything I'd call "2.0". Again: I'm waiting for 3.0.
That said, I'm using digg, gmail and youtube.
That said, I'm using digg, gmail and youtube.
Well community sites and forums and such are not something I'd count to the 2.0. So skipping those ...
Flickr? Even if it's sort of social, I'd still file it under my 1.0.
Digg? usually classified as 2.0, but boring .. I pass there once every 6 months or so.
Myspace? Created a profile, never bothered to update anything. Like the hotmail of the blogosphere. And no, Tom is NOT my friend. Way too many emos and flashy icons and annoying musics, and doesn't even properly work in my browser. No thanks.
So the only one I really bother to use is LinkedIn but that to keep in touch with people who change companies, or people from work, studies etc. So there is not a reason to go there daily but casually.
Someone hinted Facebook would be way more popular in some parts of Europe. So I signed up .. to keep in touch with people from work etc after they or I have changed companies, and for those who aren't in LinkedIn.
Other than that .. hmm. 1.0 will do. Forums and flickr and everything else is still there ...
Or hm.. blogs are not as themselves on the 2.0 .. but if i RSS them are they then ... ?
Flickr? Even if it's sort of social, I'd still file it under my 1.0.
Digg? usually classified as 2.0, but boring .. I pass there once every 6 months or so.
Myspace? Created a profile, never bothered to update anything. Like the hotmail of the blogosphere. And no, Tom is NOT my friend. Way too many emos and flashy icons and annoying musics, and doesn't even properly work in my browser. No thanks.
So the only one I really bother to use is LinkedIn but that to keep in touch with people who change companies, or people from work, studies etc. So there is not a reason to go there daily but casually.
Someone hinted Facebook would be way more popular in some parts of Europe. So I signed up .. to keep in touch with people from work etc after they or I have changed companies, and for those who aren't in LinkedIn.
Other than that .. hmm. 1.0 will do. Forums and flickr and everything else is still there ...
Or hm.. blogs are not as themselves on the 2.0 .. but if i RSS them are they then ... ?
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
I do agree with you there.
Mikuro
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
I'm a little unclear on the terminology. This is honestly the first time I've heard the phrase "web 2.0" used by people who aren't A) completely ignorant about technology (e.g., mainstream press), or B) marketing something. So forgive me if I miss the point completely.
Personally, I've yet to see a "web 2.0" site that I liked. I go to great lengths to force Gmail to use the "basic HTML" mode, because it's just so much more useful (too bad half the features don't work, even though they easily could without most of the baggage the "advanced" mode comes with). I can't tolerate the advanced mode because it doesn't let me use my browser as a browser. I can't open links in new tabs, I can't use the back/forward buttons in any meaningful way, etc. All of this works wonderfully with basic HTML, so that's what I use, even though I have to jump through hoops to keep it from going back to that AJAX-tastic mess every time I log in.
I've heard people call YouTube and MySpace "web 2.0" sites, although I really don't understand why. They seem to use very basic technology. The only thing that sets them apart from "normal" sites is that they are designed very, very poorly...
Then there are "web apps", which mostly seem to be vaporware. I keep hearing about how Microsoft will be killed by web-based office software and web-based operating systems (whatever that means...), but I haven't seen any real examples of this. Honestly, I don't see the appeal of web apps, even in theory. The user experience will always be far worse than with real apps. It seems like most of the time people try to merge application and web site behavior, they just end up with the worst of both worlds.
Personally, I've yet to see a "web 2.0" site that I liked. I go to great lengths to force Gmail to use the "basic HTML" mode, because it's just so much more useful (too bad half the features don't work, even though they easily could without most of the baggage the "advanced" mode comes with). I can't tolerate the advanced mode because it doesn't let me use my browser as a browser. I can't open links in new tabs, I can't use the back/forward buttons in any meaningful way, etc. All of this works wonderfully with basic HTML, so that's what I use, even though I have to jump through hoops to keep it from going back to that AJAX-tastic mess every time I log in.
I've heard people call YouTube and MySpace "web 2.0" sites, although I really don't understand why. They seem to use very basic technology. The only thing that sets them apart from "normal" sites is that they are designed very, very poorly...
Then there are "web apps", which mostly seem to be vaporware. I keep hearing about how Microsoft will be killed by web-based office software and web-based operating systems (whatever that means...), but I haven't seen any real examples of this. Honestly, I don't see the appeal of web apps, even in theory. The user experience will always be far worse than with real apps. It seems like most of the time people try to merge application and web site behavior, they just end up with the worst of both worlds.
Well... The theory/appeal is that you can work with all your files in an online-environment (like gmail). You can then use _any_ computer which is online for your files. You'll always have the newest version (plus any backups) of all your files wherever you are - and wherever your "main" computer is.
It's mostly appealing to desktop computer users, I guess - because if you're a mobile computer user, you'll simply take your notebook with you.
I can imagine a bright future, though, where I write on my texts on my MacBook in TextEdit, save the .rtf-file to iDisk or gDisk or something like that and continue working on the same file on a Nokia Communicator E90, either on its local Document application or an AJAX version of an RTF-wordprocessor. That way, I wouldn't have to take the whole MacBook with me - but only the little Communicator. I do this even now with my Communicator 9500, but it's a hassle to send text-files back and forth with constant conversions etc. Mostly, I'd just _start_ working on a text on the Commie and later send it to the MacBook for refining/layout, correction etc. _Synching_ documents would very much improve my work on text files (but I truly don't expect Apple to work with Nokia on this...). An online text editor would certainly have its appeal here as well.
It's mostly appealing to desktop computer users, I guess - because if you're a mobile computer user, you'll simply take your notebook with you.
I can imagine a bright future, though, where I write on my texts on my MacBook in TextEdit, save the .rtf-file to iDisk or gDisk or something like that and continue working on the same file on a Nokia Communicator E90, either on its local Document application or an AJAX version of an RTF-wordprocessor. That way, I wouldn't have to take the whole MacBook with me - but only the little Communicator. I do this even now with my Communicator 9500, but it's a hassle to send text-files back and forth with constant conversions etc. Mostly, I'd just _start_ working on a text on the Commie and later send it to the MacBook for refining/layout, correction etc. _Synching_ documents would very much improve my work on text files (but I truly don't expect Apple to work with Nokia on this...). An online text editor would certainly have its appeal here as well.
ApeintheShell
Registered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Make sense? Good.
Make sense? Good.