The Best of Web 2.0 228
Fennie writes "Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include Flickr.com, Vimeo.com and Writeboard.com. From the piece: 'The next generation of the web is here! With new kinds of desktop-like applications being released left and right, how will you know where to go and what to use? That's why we're here: To show you the best of Web 2.0 sites that you can get the most out of. No matter the task, video, audio, or photos, we have a site that works great for what you want to do and uses all the great features of Web 2.0 technology.'"
Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be more interested.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stuff like AJAX,
AJAXify (Score:5, Insightful)
Digg... (Score:5, Insightful)
Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
"But what about blogs?" What about them? People were writing diaries on USENET long before the CERN webserver ever came out. (Was CERN Web 0.0? And would NCSA or Apache be considered 1.0?) Cross-referencing and searches existed in Gopher and WAIS.
"Dynamic HTML?" There were perl scripts for emedding msql queries (not MySQL - msql) into web pages long before anyone had imagined you'd be doing anything other than CGI and many years before HTML 3 came out. Indeed, if you want merely programmable web pages (not database-generated pages) then the mere existance of CGI is enough.
"User-defined web pages" Oracle's "Powerbrowser" included a built-in web server which could serve a limited number of pages to external users. That was back in 1996, if I recall correctly.
Let me know when something worthy of a "Web 2.0" comes out, and THEN I'll pay attention.
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:1, Insightful)
[old man voice] Back in MAH day, we didn't need no fancy CEEdees, we had wax cylinders! And we liked 'em JEST fine! We didn't need no COLOR on cars, we had 'em in good ol' BLACK. It's all a buncha flashy NONsense, dang it. Where the HE-ELL is mah godDAMN geritol, damn kids these days...
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People use these? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation, not the other way around, but it's all stuff like:
"We had usenet, and we liked it! What's this RSS crap!
"We could write personal diaries! Of course we had to hand-code the HTML, including all the links, and we couldn't do it from anywhere in the world just by loggin in from a web browser, we had to telnet onto the server and type it in vimacs, but it was good enough for me, I don't see what the big deal is with all this blogging nonsense.
"Interactive HTML? Hah! The only thing that should interact is the Submit button! You hear that, Web 2.0? Submit to me like a good little program! Hyah! Hyah! Hya-- *cough* *hack* *wheeze*"
Web 2.0 label technology-centric, not user-centric (Score:3, Insightful)
I was surprised to see YouTube didn't make the list -- it's the sort of unfiltered snapshot of the world you rarely see on the Internet anymore. It reminds me of 80's-era Usenet but for movies.
Then I realized that sinces its movie delivery is Flash based, and its UI is AJAX-free, it probably doesn't qualify as "Web 2.0" in their book ...
Which made me realize that it's really a technology centric label and not a user-centric one.
Re:2.0 (Score:2, Insightful)
That's absurd. So, who cares about progress? Screw HDTV then, it's just fancy TV. Forget about Java, it's just fancy C++. The internet is just fancy radio.
Like the terminology or not, "Web 2.0" is progress. Progress is good. God bless America, and so on.
Re:2.0 (Score:2, Insightful)
"what will be kinder to my servers? Sending this user the entire page again, or just sending that little bit at the bottom that needs to be updated? hmmmm...."
ajax stands to save people quite a bit of money in bandwidth fees and processor time.
Re:People use these? (Score:3, Insightful)
And just because YOU aren't interested in things like Flickr, nobody else can or should be either?
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part people here are VERY interested in technological innovation. Problem is, "Web 2.0" is at least decade old technology. You'll find here people aren't too excited about marketing droids going on and on about faux innovation, however any real innovation is another story.
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:3, Insightful)
This article isn't about innovation. It's about buzzword fanaticism and marketers having wet dreams over The Next Big Thing without realizing that those techniques have been around for years.
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Digg... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the community around it is very web 2.0 -- it encourages participation from all, no matter how unskilled or ignorant of the subject at hand~
Come to think of it, I think Web 2.0 is a metaphor for the modern world :(
Re:That's great! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what entities are for, silly.
Depends (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends which side of the funding you're on.
Re:Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, now the question becomes: if you're building a desktop-like application for the web, why do you even WANT back and forward buttons to function? Does anybody ever complain that Outlook or Evolution don't have back and forward buttons to go back to where they were before? These buttons were designed for assisting navigation in a page-based paradigm. If you abandon that paradigm in your applications, you should have no more need for them. Make the interface well designed, intuitive and easy to navigate and you'll find it's a non-issue entirely.
Many specialized, interactive web applications are specifically designed to break away from a page-based system of organization that may be unsuitable for that application's needs. Everyone who complains about "breaking the back button" in such applications should really sit back and ask themselves - in this application, would the back button really serve a reasonable purpose?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Semantic Web questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Verdict from the W3C (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of these things make it difficult to ensure that every single (X)HTML element on your website will validate after it's been running for a while...and when you do discover bugs that break the standard it's a pain to change everything.
Take for example Slashdot, your comment, inclusive of HTML, is going to be stored in a TEXT or BLOB field and Perl filters are applied to strip out disallowed HTML and maybe fix/regenerate HTML elements. You're never going to get all the comments in the
That said, this is why forums and wiki's use simpler markup like BB or wiki code.