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.'"
People use these? (Score:4, Interesting)
Total number of these webpages that even remotely serve a need.... 2, Google Maps and maybe Google Local.
And for directions, google is easily beaten by Rand-Mcnally. Only the satelite maps feature gives it a good use.
So whats all the hype for? If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit. Same with video. Back when I used IM (before all my friends stopped using it) I used Trillian to the same effect as they use Meebo, with awesome side features (chat logs). I sure as hell don't want my bookmarks searchable to the world.
Looks more like a set of pop favorites for the under 20 crowd than it does actually useful sites.
This is the best? (Score:3, Interesting)
sheesh (Score:1, Interesting)
Mod article -1 Marketing (Score:2, Interesting)
It's fairly obvious that "Web 2.0" and "blogosphere" and the like are marketing terms. The real questions are: What marketers are coming up with these things, and who's paying them to do it? I'm thinking it's The Carlyle Group, or the Bilderbergers, or the Knights Templar.
Web 2.0 is history (Score:3, Interesting)
Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:5, Interesting)
30 Boxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:30 Boxes (Score:3, Interesting)
There were some of these "2.0" applications I hadn't tried, specifically White board, and Meebo, My first impression of Meebo was... Lackluster at best, its a single editable page, with roughly five formatting codes, and no project management, no spell check, works like giving everyone their own password protected Wiki page. Only reason its "web 2.0" is the theme, rounded edges and shadows and whatnot. A good program would be able to make trees of documents, have many pages, give completion ratings, assign pages to users, mark pages needing further work, revision, fact checking, editing, or any tag you wish, and be able to have users highlight individual tags, (say if your job is to edit, any page needing editing would show up bright red) Link to documents within documents, built in commenting, visible on text on mouse over. Just tons of stuff, This product shouldn't be even considered 1.0 its nowhere near a full product. Secondly, Meebo.com Looks really good, feels very good, very responsive, Much better than any of the "2 go" IM projects out there, great interface, feels like your using a real program. Now I just hope this runs on my Nintendo DS when it gets a browser!
Verdict from the W3C (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, validation isn't everything, and passing the validator is not 100% confirmation that your page is valid, but just for kicks (and to see if the best of web 2.0 passes the basics of web 1.0), let's pass their list through the W3C's HTML Validator and see what we get (links go to the validator results
PhotosFlickr.com [w3.org] - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 15 errors.
No need to use end tags if you don't use a start tag. Meta Keywords...does anyone still pay attention to those?
Video
vimeo.com [w3.org] - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 41 errors.
Use your alt attributes and remember that td's should be nested inside tr's.
Social Bookmarking
Del.icio.us [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 21 errors.
Actually a decent attempt. They went with a strict declaration and didn't use tables for layout.
Digg [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 3 errors
Really close. Fix those links and and get rid of that "disabled" attribute. Where'd they find that one?
Newreaders/RSS
www.bloglines.com [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 137 errors.
Yikes. Yes I think the colspan attribute is cool, too, but not that cool. Give it a rest.
Start Pages
www.netvibes.com [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 13 errors
They were doing so well with the strict declaration...but then that rotten cellpadding attribute snuck in...and width...and border.
Collaboration/Word Processors
www.writeboard.com [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 12 errors
Not bad. Time to advance to Strict, I think.
Maps/Directions
Google Maps [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 101 errors
Google! How could you?!? Of all the sites to use deprecated elements under a Strict declaration! I feel betrayed.
Local Directories
Google Local [google.com] - Not Found The requested URL
Chat/IM
Meebo [w3.org] - DOCTYPE DECLARATION was not recognized or missing - 2 errors
Come on. That's sooo 1990's. Actually, it gave me a declaration, so perhaps its malformed or they don't give one to robots.
Buzzword Sites - What? Like I could let a name like Design Technica off that easy.
Design Technica [w3.org] - This Page is not valid (no Doctype found)! - 38 errors
Ouch! Same story. I see one in the source, but the validator doesn't accept it. Tables
Hmmm...everybody tried xhtml except designtechnica and meebo. Targeting mobile browsers, I guess? Nobody passed. There were a few non-table-based layouts, but that was offset by a lot of use of deprecated elements. It looks like web 2.0 is about as ready as IE 7.
solution too often in search of a problem (Score:1, Interesting)
yes, there are applications for this stuff, but a few applications here and there isn't enough. this solution has to try and solve every problem.
hence, the people in the know are pretty well unimpressed.
btw, i want to learn ajax so i can stop building multi-dimensional arrays to support my linked select boxes. in that case, this solution looks *really* nice. but a linked select isn't used that often.
then ya have to worry about public sites b/c so many people have js turned off.
some cool stuff, but not earth shattering.