|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Dunno if this is what you’re looking for Dale, but this would be my take.
1. ‘web’ is referring to the whole infrastructure and indeed metastructure of the wired world we now take for granted;
2. The numbering system references the common coding of software releases (in the form ‘major.minor’ – for example, Windoze 3.1 would be the first tweak of a major third revision);
3. The proffered description of 1.0 and 2.0 is trying to delineate a sea-change between two cycles of the web’s development, with a clear division marked by the wash-out of all the so-called bubble business founded in the hysterically over-capitalised dot com era;
4. The key characteristic that the proponents of this model are drawing attention to is the tendency of more recent thinking to be much more user-centred and pull~ rather than push~modelled in its operation – for example, you used to be able to just log onto various news sites around the world, but can now set up a thing called an RSS feed that will selectively and automatically download your personal choice of material from loads of sites – perhaps a sports column from one site, a couple of varied news feeds, a columnist whose writing you enjoy, a cartoon strip, a blog entry…
What the difference boils down to is that companies or individuals who want to extract value from the web under the entirely nominal ‘web 2.0’ scenario need to come to terms with the users being far more in control of content and processes than in the earlier days of the web when we were just grateful that computers could talk to each other at all!
Last edited by maverick; 05/07/06 07:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
sorry mav, but that is more than 25 words..
try again
first there was the web (web 1.0)
it got improved--collectively and it changed. it became more powerful and in some ways harder to use.
it got more users (who knew nothing about it) so it changed again, (to be simpler.)
the powerful (but hard to understand stuff is still there) but most users don't know anything about that stuff, because there is an over layer (that is less powerful) but easy for know nothings to use.
lump all the changes together, and it got called web 2.0
(i know its still more than 25 words, but...)
what that saying about any technology that is complex enough, looks like magic? (to people who don't (or don't want to) understand the underligning technology)
in the mid 80's, as i set about learning some of the technology of computers, i studied components. (i.e, j/k flip flops a kind of switch) we covered them in less than a week.
15 years before (early 1970)my then BIL did his masters thesis on J/K flipflops.
surprizing though, i had almost as good an understanding of j/k flip flops as my (then) BIL.
thing change.. new technology becomes familiar.. and with each application, its easier to understand how they work.
On Ramps didn't exist before highways..
same with off ramps.
drive a bit, and its easy to recognize old highways (in NY area, parkways)
now days, even kids play mats that are maps for their toy cars have on ramps and off ramps..
what was once cutting edge technology is understood by kids.. (but in reality, planning a highway, and the space, and the details of on ramps and off ramps is much harder!--understanding optimal arc for a cloverleaf or how long to make an accelleration strip, and other details (since many on off ramps lead to highways that are crossing, (overhead or below!)the main road..
on ramps are simple to use.. its rare a driver is confused, but designing them (and understanding what makes a good one, and why) is harder..
the web is easier to use.. its harder to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Thank you both for the interpretation; now I'm catching on
Helen: Well, not really. What I said was "25 syllables"
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
For what it's worth, here's a def from UD
Interactive media theory where an infrastructure focusing on content creation, management, and dissemination is built for the user to generate that content in a community framework.
Urban Dictionary falls under the Web 2.0 theory because they built an infrastructure to create, manage, and disseminate the definition of slang terms generated by the user and ranked by the community--Jason D. Schwartz
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Well, if I'm undestanding what "Web 2.0" is being defined as, it sounds like something that the academics called the "semantic web" way back at the turn of the century.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557 |
"Semantic web" is all about making the webs that are "computer readable" (the data is semantically parsable) where most people would apply the buzzword "Web 2.0" to things that make it more "user friendly". Almost diametrically opposed concepts - most people's mySpace pages would cause any self-respecting computer to blow its brains out. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
They certainly seem to be catching a lot of criminals because of that site.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
596
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
