Can we all just agree on a definition of Web 2.0?
Ask any group of developers, designers, project managers, and executives to articulate what Web 2.0 is, and you're likely to get as many different answers as there are people. Don't count on getting a more consistent definition from the online authorities either. Here are some examples of how different people define it:
The surface-skimmers: These non-techies know it when they see it. If the site has rounded corners, windows with gradient backgrounds, a tag cloud, and 3-D "bubbly" icons, it's Web 2.0.
The Gmail junkies: This group sees Web 2.0 as the ability for web apps to use features traditionally reserved for thick-client applications, like pioneer Gmail. For them, Web 2.0 is all about using Ajax, Ruby and other technologies to offer a better user experience.
The kitchen sink crowd: For this group, Web 2.0 includes a little bit of everything. One rather authoritative-sounding article from O'Reilly seems to throw in nearly every recent trend they could think of as part of Web 2.0: the Web as a platform, relying on collective intelligence, data-centric applications, continuous improvement of software, trusting users as co-developers, the use of lightweight programming methods, software that works on multiple devices, and rich user experiences. For good measure, they even mention The Long Tail.
Wikipedia: The typically accurate and concise Wikipedia surprised me with what seemed like an off-target definition in their Web 2.0 entry:
Google: Google Definitions was a little bit clearer:
The term-coiner: I went back to the source, the guy who coined the phrase "Web 2.0," Tim O'Reilly. On his December 2006 blog. Tim refined his definition of Web 2.0:
No wonder people like me are scratching our heads when our bosses and clients tell us they want something to be a bit more "Web 2.0-ish." Can we all agree on a definition, or should we just stop using the term before we lose our collectively-intelligent minds?
The clarity-loving communicator in me casts this vote. I say we stop using the term Web 2.0 until we can agree on a less ambiguous definition.
In the meantime, I have some bubbly icons to create.
The surface-skimmers: These non-techies know it when they see it. If the site has rounded corners, windows with gradient backgrounds, a tag cloud, and 3-D "bubbly" icons, it's Web 2.0.
The Gmail junkies: This group sees Web 2.0 as the ability for web apps to use features traditionally reserved for thick-client applications, like pioneer Gmail. For them, Web 2.0 is all about using Ajax, Ruby and other technologies to offer a better user experience.
The kitchen sink crowd: For this group, Web 2.0 includes a little bit of everything. One rather authoritative-sounding article from O'Reilly seems to throw in nearly every recent trend they could think of as part of Web 2.0: the Web as a platform, relying on collective intelligence, data-centric applications, continuous improvement of software, trusting users as co-developers, the use of lightweight programming methods, software that works on multiple devices, and rich user experiences. For good measure, they even mention The Long Tail.
Wikipedia: The typically accurate and concise Wikipedia surprised me with what seemed like an off-target definition in their Web 2.0 entry:
Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2004, refers to a perceived second-generation of Web-based servicesÃ'such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomiesÃ'that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users.
Google: Google Definitions was a little bit clearer:
Web 2.0 is a term often applied to a perceived ongoing transition of the World Wide Web from a collection of websites to a full-fledged computing platform serving web applications to end users. Ultimately Web 2.0 services are expected to replace desktop computing applications for many purposes.
The term-coiner: I went back to the source, the guy who coined the phrase "Web 2.0," Tim O'Reilly. On his December 2006 blog. Tim refined his definition of Web 2.0:
Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I've elsewhere called "harnessing collective intelligence.")
No wonder people like me are scratching our heads when our bosses and clients tell us they want something to be a bit more "Web 2.0-ish." Can we all agree on a definition, or should we just stop using the term before we lose our collectively-intelligent minds?
The clarity-loving communicator in me casts this vote. I say we stop using the term Web 2.0 until we can agree on a less ambiguous definition.
In the meantime, I have some bubbly icons to create.
1 Comments
Leave a comment
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Can we all just agree on a definition of Web 2.0?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.nearinfinity.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/392
Web 2.0? Try 3.0. This is a good read => http://alistapart.com/articles/web3point0