web 1.0 vs web 2.0 designer differences.

Placebo

I'm writing a thesis on this, think topic it=s best applicable here?

Currently working on a chapter to differentiate between a Web 1.0 developer and a Web 2.0 developer.

Taking the mass collaboration aspect and new technologies/frameworks available, i can only derive one major heading. Can anyone thing of any more? i have the content in my head but need to divide it up.

+ Static vs Dynamic
+ Read vs Write Web = personal homepages vs blogging / Wikkis etc


thanks

PixelTrawler

Static vs Dynamic
Wouldnt agree this is a web 1 and 2 difference - there have been plenty of dynamic sites around long before this web 2.0 name came about - although theres no hard and fast rules and it can depend on opinion.

I think what you're trying to say is sites with user generated content as opposed to just content added by the site owner - i.e. flicker, wikipedia, myspace etc (some of which may prove to be fads that will die a death)


Did a presentation on this at work which I can't share but heres a few bits from it

Heres two quotes for you

"Web 2.0 represents a fundamental shift toward a more open, flexible and participatory model for creating content, systems and business models. Its application can reduce cost, enhance adaptability and create new business opportunities."

The Gartner Group

"Web 2.0 refers to a second-generation of Internet-based services — such as social networking sites, bookmarking, wikis, and other technologies that promote social engagement, user participation, and a rich user experience."
Can't remember where we got that quote from


Web 2.0 Technologies

• AJAX
• Wikis
• Blogs
• Folksonomies / Tag Clouds
• Permanent Beta / Evolution
• Web Services
• Syndication: RSS/ATOM

Placebo

thanks for that joe,
i meant dynamic in the sense if we compare blogging, the way we have prema links that links to an ever changing blog, plus rss feeds. Automatic creation of archives and linking to those and tagging for blogging, creating a network within the blog

i have content on stuff you have mentioned thanks but im afraid it just goes under read vs write web,

i cant think of any more headings, i have rich user experience and il compare html vs ajax there but thats it !

probe

One problem with UGC (user generated content) a la web 2.0 is the question of commercial sustainability.

Many corporate advertisers (ie the marketing ***kers they employ, many of whom would be severely challenged booting up a Windows or Mac PC) are scared to put advertising content/links directly in UGC/w2.0 sites in case their product is featured next to some "un-politically correct" user generated content, in case their all important brand image might be "tarnished" by a posting or comment posted by some "rebel" type!

.probe

BRENSH

One of the driving factors of the web is Google. As they have shifted I think others followed. Google for example were one of the first to use ajax as a communication method.

Teh Russ

In terms of design rather than functionality, when you talk about "web 2.0" you're talking about bright colours, gradients, large fonts, extensive use of CSS, tableless designs and XHTML, as well as AJAX-y partial page refreshes and effects.

So, in terms of the technologies required to be a "web 2.0" developer, you've got advanced, cross-brower knowledge of CSS, advanced XHTML, strong Javascript, knowledge of various popular script libraries (mooTools, script.aculo.us, Prototype, etc) and familiarity with data formats such as XML and JSON.

mewso

Teh Russ wrote: »

In terms of design rather than functionality, when you talk about "web 2.0" you're talking about bright colours, gradients, large fonts, extensive use of CSS, tableless designs and XHTML, as well as AJAX-y partial page refreshes and effects.

So, in terms of the technologies required to be a "web 2.0" developer, you've got advanced, cross-brower knowledge of CSS, advanced XHTML, strong Javascript, knowledge of various popular script libraries (mooTools, script.aculo.us, Prototype, etc) and familiarity with data formats such as XML and JSON.

Yes but then what would we call myspace and bebo then? Since they allow hordes of plebs to infect the web with eyesores called websites that probably use less standards than in their toilets it's not really following your model.

ButcherOfNog

Theres a big difference in Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0 with enterprise web applications, and the ability to provide richer interfaces for users with less round-trips to the server. Properly designed Web 2.0 applications offer better scalability and usability due to less clicks and server page refreshes to get things done.

Teh Russ

musician wrote: »

Yes but then what would we call myspace and bebo then? Since they allow hordes of plebs to infect the web with eyesores called websites that probably use less standards than in their toilets it's not really following your model.

Myspace is hardly what I'd call a model web 2.0 site! Bebo isn't much better either.

Facebook's a better example, as are Trig.com and Virb.com - these are what you get when a social networking website's done properly!

I'm thinking more along the lines of sites like Twitter, Digg, iGoogle, Flickr, last.fm and so on - these are sites that pretty much typify the whole web 2.0 thing to me.

marco_polo

http://web2.0bingo.com/

replicantface

One of the major shifts to Web2.0 has been the sheer accessibility of powerful and simple to use tools for non developers.

For a long time it was only really developers and those who paid developers who had websites with much more than "My HomePage" and a guestbook.

In recent times it's become astonishingly easy for anyone comptuer literate to create a seemingly complex site (with streaming video, photo galleries, IM, advertising, selling via PayPal) with relative ease and for free.

Compare the look of a 14year olds homepage ten years ago and now. Although they would've put much more work into it then, that site just wouldn't look or feel as good as the Bebo page that just took ten minutes to create and skin.

cousin_borat

Just to expand on Web1.0 versus Web2.0 which is a bit limiting IMO. I'd say for anyone interested in the subject to read "The World is Flat".

Fantastic book in the way it contextualizes all the techie stuff in business, economics and market forces. Without doubt the best way to explain Business Information Technology' role to people with a non technical background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_is_Flat