The Web 2.0 Conundrum - How Much Control is Too Much? 59
CrashRoX asks: "One of the big hypes with Web 2.0 is that users should be able to control their content. We then end up with all assortments of mash-ups, widgets, feeds and customized pages/profiles. Given this, where do site admins draw the line on what users can do? MySpace is the best example for this question. Their popularity is based on promoting the fact that you can have a page that displays your personality, customize it and pretty much do whatever you want to it. Over time, they've had security problems with users using JavaScript. That privilege was revoked not too long after. Most recently, they've limited the use of flash controls and have started banning certain widgets (like YouTube and others). Sites like Google let you create your own widgets using an API. How much control from a programming, security and usability point of view should we give users? What guidelines should developers follow for building web 2.0 sites?"
Major misconception (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We're sorry. It won't happen again.
- CmdrTaco
Re: (Score:2)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you punch someone you can't then get sniffy because they carry around the bruise and won't allow you to unpunch them again. Why should you get pissed if you choose to post something and then can't edit it afterwards? You control and select your actions - any opportunity to take back said action is a privilege, not a right.
You have the right to act as you wish: the right t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Says who?
Example: Take the Slashdot articles database. Remove every tag applied to every article. Now "put back" the structure back exactly how it was. No, don't recreate it by looking at a previous copy - "take back" your original action.
Just because something's digital, that doesn't mean it's automagically symmetrical in time. Sure, we back digital content up more, and Wikipedia will let you vie
Re: (Score:2)
If this really was your first post, then I apologise and retract my comment - I thought it was mentioned in the FAQ, but I can't find it now so perhaps it isn't.
Nevertheless, the original poster (was that also you?) seemed to be comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
IANAL, but it looks like
Easy... (Score:2)
What do you mean by End User? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If that doesn't deserve a +5 Insightful mod, nothing does!
Re: (Score:2)
The least restrictions possible for security (Score:2, Interesting)
As much control as reasonably practical, without intruding on other users' security.
For example, a page that only gets seen by me (e.g. a plugin for my customised google homepage) might as well let me write Javascript: to do so wouldn't mess with anyone else's security.
On the other hand, a public page in the myspace.com domain could use javascri
Web 2.0? (Score:1)
MySpace is not Web 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
As for how much control to give users, give them whatever your resources will allow. If you've got the team strength to be able to firefight a javascript worm (MySpace) then give them a lot. If you've got the bandwidth to give them video upload (YouTube) give them space. If you're a one man team working on a toy website give them a couple of checkboxes and a button.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The money to pay these people in the beginning can come from venture capitalists or from the tooth fairy, it doesn't matter. You need these people to be successful. One man can create the next Flickr, Google, whatever, but he can not run it alone. A site which is "i
Google (Score:1)
Stanford University (Score:1)
Yes. Google started as a project at Stanford University, first called "BackRub".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
web 0.5 html text with pictures!
web 1.0 html text, pictures, javascript
web 1.6 html text, pictures, javascript, java, flash, shockwave, ad nauseum
web 1.9 html text, pictures, javascript, java, flash, shockwave, ad nauseum in frames
web 2.0 sctrach frames and replace with spans!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and Shockwave isn't really used much anymore (except for some games, but Java applets are being used for about the same thing nowadays as well).
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard people credit the term to Tim O'Reilly [oreilly.com] but I'm not sure
how accurate that is.
It is really a phrase with no specific meaning in the first place.
Yes.
I never even noticed there was a switch-over or a release of HTTP protocol v. 2. So it is really anyones own make up of a defintion for Web 2.0 (when is 2.1 getting released? can't wait)
Just wait until you see what we announce at the Gopher 3.1 Expo [1expo.ws].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Quite easy (Score:1)
Control code, not content.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If only. But "Web 2.0" isn't just for MySpace. User created content pretty much defines FLICKR, for example. But Flickr has decided to keep a quite narrow field of what can be posted and viewable in the public areas. Adult materials, nudity and sex, those are out. But also interestingly, so are "non-photos", such as screenshots or artwork. Flickr wants to be a family-friendly photo site, thus the content allowed is only photos. As the user base grows, it will
Different story.. (Score:2)
Useless until you define web2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Until you frame the question by defining what the heck you mean by that, this discussion will be useless.
What do you expect to be able to do? (Score:1)
Hopefully, the developers know who the target audience is for the webiste. So, thinking like one of the user's... what would you expect to be able to do?
This is different from what you want to do. You may want to access the personal details of every user... but do you really expect to be able to do that (would you want everyone to access *your* personal details?)
The question's a little too generic. It depends entirely o
The User Friendly... (Score:1)
The Old Adage Holds True (Score:3, Funny)
Does it fit the program? (Score:2)
While features for features sake can hinder the user.
It's a pretty simple equation really.
Moo (Score:1)
People just gave in at some point. It's what companies have going for them. Just stop using Flash, or other nasty user-co
Too Much (Score:1)