Web 2.0 - Design At All?

I was wondering, what does the term "Web 2.0" mean to you in the way of features on a website. The actual meaning (quoted from .NET Magazine) is;

"The enhancement of the internet to provide greater interactivity bewteen user and online resources. Be it through a web browser or desktop application."

So this technically refers to nothing about the design of a website, basically just the structure it is based upon. However most people including myself, say things such as "I used a Web 2.0 design" or "Tried to be more Web 2.0" and things like that. I suppose we generally get the idea from seeing sites described as Web 2.0 have all got a similar design or theme. Such as clean lines, backgrounds and font with a nice fancy logo to top it off, places such as Flickr.

So to you what is 'Web 2.0' and do you think the term should be flung onto any design that has a bit of white in it?

How can a desktop be a Web 2.0 application.. WEB 2.0..

Web 2.0 is a number of things.. as well as a sterotypical "design scheme"

Quote:

---

such as social-networking sites, wikis, and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users.

---

Software like Adobe AIR and Google Gears allows developers to create desktop applications that run using the web. So users can edit things like posts, account information and communcations via their desktop without the use of a browser.

Pownce have one of the best I have seen.

Yeah, but still? Those are desktop applications.. like Mozilla Firefox.. it should be Desktop 2.0.. not Web, even though it is communicating to the web.

ALOT of applications use the web for things like registration, license validation, and other sorts.

Those are not Web 2.0..

Well, argue it with the big dogs. Not me. The guy who pinned the idea of Web 2.0 says desktop applications are the generation of web 2.0.

Tom O'Reily

Your magazine lies mate :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrCraig

Your magazine lies mate :)

---

.NET lies?!?!?!

One of the most respected magazines in the areas of web development...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In alluding to the version-numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, the phrase "Web 2.0" hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web. Technologies such as weblogs (blogs), social bookmarking, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds (and other forms of many-to-many publishing), social software, web application programming interfaces (APIs), and online web services such as eBay and Gmail provide enhancements over read-only websites.

---

Yeah sorry...

.INFO magazine is the way to go nowadays...

Lol, you can't be into design or coding in any way then if you're not a .NET reader. It's the UK's major web developing magazin.

http://www.useit.com/hotlist/dot-net...-cover-big.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awfy

Lol, you can't be into design or coding in any way then if you're not a .NET reader. It's the UK's major web developing magazin.

http://www.useit.com/hotlist/dot-net...-cover-big.jpg

---

I code, and I am in America.. I don't get that Mag..

.net is **** compared to webdesigner in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oni

.net is **** compared to webdesigner in my opinion.

---

I would concur, im not a .net reader, i think the cover of there mag that was posted pretty much sums up why id avoid any advice on aesthetics from the publication :P

Tho web designer although somewhat below standard of late always has some interesting content to read.

Web 2.0 isnt about looks, though it does involve them, its about how users interact with a website. Web 1.0 was static pages and text, while web 2.0 is more about interactivity and dynamic design. User generated content and interactions with the web page are key, ajax and other herlided web 2.0 technology's simply allow this interaction to become more seemless and fluent.

Saying you have to read a certain publication to be a good webdesigner is as stupid as saying you have to use the same Applications to build it. Possibly stupider as its almost saying you have to use the same ideas. A decent web designer is supposed to be creative, if you limit your inspirations to a single (admittedly danm right fugly) magazine, your really holding yourself back :)

I have .NET and WebDesigner subscriptions.

... good for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awfy

Lol, you can't be into design or coding in any way then if you're not a .NET reader. It's the UK's major web developing magazin.

---

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Web designer isnt as good as it previously was ill admit, with most of the tutorials I think 'do I care' although the bonus disk always has useful sounds and images ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oni

Web designer isnt as good as it previously was ill admit, with most of the tutorials I think 'do I care' although the bonus disk always has useful sounds and images ;)

---

Be this a totally irrelevant tangent, id have to blame it on there obsession with flash. Every site they go over is just some hyped up novelty flash site, Sure they look nice, but its few and far between that interesting content, or even a functional or usable design appears.
They really need to get back on track with proper Web design based content, (x)html/js/php is the aria that really interests me.
The flash just kinda bores me now, cutting edge interactive dhtml designs a much more interesting area imo. And a focus on a none flash site would be a nice change anyway :)

It's turned into a style by morons who thought; "I know, lets put a shadow on this and reduce the opacity to 20% - LOLMGZ! WEB2.0!".

It's merely the 'Internet Revolution' which involves using new technology [xhtml/css/php etc] as opposed to the old plain HTML.

It is in NO WAY a design style.

It is everything to do with the site there for it does include design style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlorX

It is everything to do with the site there for it does include design style.

---

If you mean that, then yes, obviously, but I thought it was people using it just as a style - "ZOMG THIS IS WEB 2.0 STYLE!".

In my opinion Web 2.0 is centred around a number of things. This can include, but not limited to, interactivity, user centred websites, social networking, accessability etc. It also covers new technologies, but that is used in all "Web 2.0" type applications. Another thing about Web 2.0 is that it is aimed to make web applications more like desktop applications.
Bearing in mind that Web 2.0 is just a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media, similar to AJAX.

indeed agreed with above
Web 2.0 isnt based on designs
or it would be simple and few sites have 2.0
the "Design Side" of Web 2.0
Consists of Complex Backgrounds oringinal art
extremly complex font like Habbo Snowstorm Font
and layout sharpening
easily done

as above has said people want interactivity
alot of fansites put the content infront and say do whatever
interactivity would be navigations like clubhabbo or navigations that hover and come out
or such as flash & java apps

basically web 2.0 seems to be based on oringinality and complex
rarely done coding & Designs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aflux

It's turned into a style by morons who thought; "I know, lets put a shadow on this and reduce the opacity to 20% - LOLMGZ! WEB2.0!".

It's merely the 'Internet Revolution' which involves using new technology [xhtml/css/php etc] as opposed to the old plain HTML.

It is in NO WAY a design style.

---

^^ haha, i dread to think what web 3.0 would be

:o opacity to 20.1% and outer glow to 0.001% WEB 3.0


Tbh .net is good but you dont HAVE to read it to be a good web devloper, just gives you a boost i surpose.

Web 3.0 is meant to be the development and destroying on Microsoft. Where Google and Apple Inc. are developing software so it is all online. Things like word processing, spreadsheets and so on can be created and saved online.

That's the prediction in my special edition Webdesigner mag.

Agreed RE definition of Web 3.0. Companies like Adobe are also moving toward that sort of web standard, with development of web versions of Photoshop.