Web 2.0 is not a word that can be easily defined. Even though it does not have one set definition there is criteria, which a website must have in order to be considered Web 2.0.
Tim O’Reilly and Media Live International created Web 2.0. Web 2.0 basically has more applications than ever before. Tim O’Reilly said the most important thing is to figure out how to make the databases easier for the user. He was implying that what users want is what Web 2.0 sites have to give them.
Before Web 2.0 websites, people visited html based websites. The information was first transmitted and then consumed. Today Web 2.0 sites information can be created, altered, and shared. Web 2.0 seems to be an upgrade from earlier. It makes websites user friendly. Web 2.0 can fulfill any need of any user. The user can customize the website to fit their needs exactly.
There are different types of Web 2.0 sites. There are programming, video, music, chat, images and photos, blogs, bookmarking, VOIP (voice over IP), games and sketching, wikis, office tools, RSS(really simple syndication), emails, news, file sharing, and other Web 2.0 sites.
An example of a popular Web 2.0 site is YouTube. It is the number one Web 2.0 video site. Other common Web 2.0 sites include: Pandora, Flickr, Blogger, Skype, Wikipedia, Gmail, Facebook and many more.
There are eight core characteristics of Web 2.0: user centered design, crowd sourcing, web as a platform, collaboration, power decentralization, dynamic content, SAAS, and rich user experience.
User centered design means that every possible need of a user is fulfilled. A good example of this is iGoogle. A user can set their iGoogle homepage to receive RSS. Many people set iGoogle to see the weather, news, popular videos and so forth so they only have to go to one page rather than many.
Crowd sourcing means that a lot of information is posted in a short amount of time due to bloggers. Web 2.0 sites get more information faster than traditional news stations and sites because there are a lot of people adding information.
Web as a platform means that programs will be free.
Collaboration means that information can be edited and shared. A good example is Wikipedia. On this website a user can add more information on a topic, add pictures, links, and edit text. A person can go on Wikipedia to get a basic understanding of a topic that they know little about. Users trust that the contributors to the site are posting honest information.
Power Decentralization means that the users have the power and there are no administrators.
Dynamic Content means the Internet must always be changing and keeping up with current technology and the wants of their consumers.
SAAS is if a program like iWorks opened up a free version online and people no longer had to pay for such programs.
Rich user experiences means it must be fast, less cluttered, and more appealing. Those are the eight core characteristics to determine if a website is Web 2.0 or not.
As everything in life there are “dangerous” sides of Web 2.0. People should be reluctant to put out too much personal information due to hackers. Also companies need to make sure their websites are safe in order to protect their consumers.
Web 2.0 is constantly in change. Web 2.0 is a website that is designed with a user in mind. Web 2.0 sites allow a user to use the site to their full potential.
I liked how you mentioned the dangers of web 2.0. We often jump online on sites such as facebook and are so willing to put ourselves out there, that we forget what consequences may come of it. We are in a time where hackers and identity theives are at an all time high, and we are making it easier for them. You used great examples of websites that have been created because of 2.0. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your insight into web 2.0. I agree with you in listed some of the dangers. I added a very small amount of them in my posting, but I do believe that peopel are absolutely not made aware of the dangers of web 2.0. it is a far more open and user adopted internet than it was years ago. Basically anyone can jump on a make a website. Even if the web site it completey desgined just to implant viruses. The best example is the myspace page that was made that planted over 1 million viruses to people that visited that page. It's scary to think about how often we are online, and how often we are exposed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I just thought that we might have the future someday where web users cannot even keep up with it. Web has become more "dynamic" and given us unlimited information. These days, web technology reachs such a higher level, but at the same time, like you mentioned, companies need to keep all the information and websites safe. We might have to draw a line sometime even though we cannot help thinking about the convenience brought by web. Who's going to control Web ∞ in the future?..
ReplyDeleteYour description of Web 2.0 was pretty much straight forward... and I think that's a good thing for someone who reads this and isn't familiar with what Web 2.0 is all about. The inserted photo choice works well considering it sums up many of the popular sites of today that utilize the Web 2.0 technology. I think the most outstanding portion of this blog is the link to the Tim O'Reilly definition of Web 2.0 on YouTube... talk about hearing it straight from the horses mouth.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your article I gained a better understand of the foundation of this whole web 2.0 process. I was unaware that Tim O'Riley was the founder of web 2.0. I thought that articale was just his interpertation of web 2.0. My question is this, Was google maps the first web 2.0 site and if so does that Tim O'Riley is founder of Google maps?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the way you interpreted web 2.0 and the way you explained it. I completely agree with the dangers of web 2.0 and the consequences that may come with it if people post too much information about themselves or if companies don't monitor what they put on the website and how they have to make it safe in order to protect consumers. I also think that web 2.0 can become a bad thing when people rely on sites like wikipedia as their main source of finding out information because anyone can add to anyones writing whether the information is wrong or right without siting where they found the information from. This could lead people into thinking one way about something when that is completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteReally enjoyed reading your article. I really felt that it was journalistic because it seemed you put a ton of information in it. I really did not think that i was using web 2.0 until reading various articles and seeing that i do use skype and facebook so i am a consumer. When you think about it what else would it have been called. I read the different dynamics of it and yes the way it looks is better and use its easier to find things on line and yes we do put way to much info online. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your article on Web 2.0 you reviewed it well and added in something that I have never heard of, such as crowd sourcing, I have heard of what the description is but never heard it refered to as crowd sourcing.
ReplyDelete