cascadingstylez

There is none!

For along time this has been bugging me now, and i know i will get alot of backlash from this thread, but despite peoples views on Web 2.0 im correct in what im about to say.

The main problem is, there is no official meaning set to the word or term Web 2.0. For example if you look up CSS 2.0 you will find straight away many links explaining what it is, how it works, and if ever an argument were to break out on the topic of CSS 2.0 you would send them over to W3C.org and tell them to read the facts, but you cannot do that with Web 2.0, because there is no meaning for it.

People are using it to explain the modern techniques of Web and Online media design, but everyone has different views on the term Web 2.0, the term is whatever you want it to be or percive it to be.

A client (a few actually) recently asked me to do them a CSS layout which was Web 2.0, i instantly replyed and said, what is your perseption on Web 2.0? The client replyed and said:

'Errrm, something modern'

Why not say modern in the first place, he didnt even want a flashy, gimickey website, so first of all there was no need to say Web 2.0. Second of all, every client that asks me for a Web 2.0 design will always get an email back asking for an in depth description of what they want, which they could have done in the first place.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/web-design-discussion/312715-the-official-meaning-web-2-0-a.html

What Defines Web 2.0 and Web 1.0?

Who defines the rules? Who can chose wether something is Web 1.0 or Web 2.0, who said this? What organisation invented this term and rules websites?

Nobody!

Some people say Old looking sites are Web 1.0 and new sites are Web 2.0, but whats the sites that are inbetween? Or the sites that are way to hi-tech for its time?

Whats ebay? Whats SpeedTest.net? What Google? and who decides all this.

It seem irrelivent to use the word or term when it has no official meaning to to it. So client, i recommend you dont use the term, because every designer in the office where i work will not translate the term Web 2.0 into what you 'Think' it means. Whoever can is a great mind reader.

Albino

isnt web 2.0 just a term O'reilly coined?

web 2.0 in terms of website development is just a communtiy based site, where the users have control over the content, look, feel etc

web 2.0 in terms of design means white space, sparse bold colours, centered layout, and gradients.


well, in general terms, as you said there is no exact definition, and I think the term sucks haha.

EDIT: missed a word out

__________________
Toddish.co.uk - Portfolio/Blog
Powcomics.com - Webcomic Hosting/Directory
Erant.co.uk - vent your rage!

Hitch

Finally! Rep++ for cascadingstylez!

I'v tried to stress this on NamePros several times, yet, these new developers can't accept the fact Web 2.0 isn't about design.

Web 2.0 does seem to get used for Integration, Interaction, Ease of Use etc etc...
As O'Reilly first "mentioned" the term.

Though, people what say, "Look, buy this Web 2.0 design!" obviously don't know anything about design.
As soon as i see that, i turn away, and they quickly get a bad reputation in my mind.

Alot of designs are pritty similar, which are used on some new, interesting sites(Which can be described as Web 2.0), but just because the designs are similar on those sites, doesn't mean the design is Web 2.0, at all.

__________________

Richard

Fully agree, easy to use, assessability, etc. +REP

__________________

James

Finally, people who have some sense. +rep to that post too.

RickM

Yep...fully agree...its annoying as its become so widely addopted as a certain type of design....even a UK mag called Web Designer has bad views on what 'Web 2.0' is...they published an article of words to the effect of all web 2.0 layouts must look like this and have X font with X colors....very annoying

REP+

__________________
RickM

Disney World Fans - Mobile Apps for your WDW Vacation!
WSDReg - Affordable Domain Registration. Serving NP members since 2006!

neroux

Well, its a hype as many other hypes too. Sites which relied on user content existed long before the usual suspects among the web 2.0 sites.

shamless plug, I am proud to have a good old style web 1.0 site with CityPics.org.

__________________

-- Do not let others be treated this way!

Badger

Silly name + fisher price buttons + AJAX + user generated content = Web2.0

For me anyway .. hehe

__________________

iMODO :: ErrorMatic :: AdShack :: NameMart :: DomainPress :: XYZ

cascadingstylez

There is no meaning to WEB 2.0.

User Generated Content has been around for ages, so has nice looking websites, you cannot define it. Its impossible because there is no definition.

Gene

Well said cascadingstylez! I fully agree. Web 2.0 is more of an individual perception than anything defined. There are certain components that lend themselves well to the "web 2.0" concept, but they are not exclusive to web 2.0. I think the "web 2.0 design" argument is in a whole different thing. If it looks sleek and streamlined, it is nicknamed "web 2.0". There is no real definition. There are lots of grey areas and overlaps. Something designed years ago could be thought of as web 2.0. It's all very subjective.

__________________
.
.
Expired Domain Search -- ExpiredDomainBoss.com | Sell Domain Names -- DomainProfitsClub.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-OutlawBiker-

Ahnold told me 1.0 crashed and burned in 99, 2.0 is the judgement of the real value of the web, and 3.0 will be the ultimate rise of the machines.

broke-r

Web 2.0 is a total crap! The web was always web 2.0!!!

Discussion forums like Namepros (and many other online communities) and sites like HotOrNot (all user generated content) have been arround for ages! So who is kidding who?

Personally, the only thing I see as "web 2.0" is the new trend in web design (i.e. Google's "let's save some bandwidth" style)

cascadingstylez

This is the whole reason i set this post up. You cannot label a site on its Design and Content.

Site One: User Relient, Amazing Design, layed out using Tables // Some people think because its layed out in tables it MUST be Web 1.0.

Site Two: Static Page, Amazing Design, Layed out using CSS // Oh this MUST be Web 1.0 aswell, it has the features of so called Web 2.0 with its CSS layout, but its a static page, not user generated, so it must be Web. 1.0

There is no way you could label it, people are trying to say if a site ticks all the boxes its Web 2.0, and if a box is left unticked its Web 1.0. Ok so first of all, what about when the design trend changes, because it will, are you going to call a different design trend Web 3.0?

This design trend thats going round is nothing more then 'Well Coded' CSS and HTML and some artistic skills that can be learnt on www.pixel2life.com. It isnt called Web 2.0 it can be simply called 'Modern' without any of the confusion.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=312715

I had to laugh at that! Nice one

iMODO Man

web 3.0 says to me "goodbye" laptops, keyboards, screens and desktops, "hello" integration of the net into every element of our regular (currently offline) lives and, like outlaw says, the rise of the machines..

zachary0611

this would be a great opportunity for someone to create thir own style of design and say it was formerly known as web 2.0 lol

__________________
Best Buy Coupons 2011

NP41215

Web 2.0 reminds me of cheap, old wines in fancy, new bottles.

You're really paying for the bottle, but it SELLS.

After all, the web is about perception and marketing, isn't it? So, in that sense, those guys who "invent" Web 2.0 really know their business, and what Web 2.0 is all about, after all.

We need to be jolted out of our snooze sometimes.

LOL.

So, what else's new? .... ? ... OK, time for me to go back to snooze.

SellMeUrDomain

Good post cascadingstylz. Summarised, web 2.0 is Style over Substance.